[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-3: ASN Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

Turned away by whom and for what reasons?

At this point, there aren't really any compatibility problems even if the peer's router can't handle 4-byte ASNs locally, they just have to configure the peering session with AS23456 and move on.

I really don't think continuing to cater to irrational misperceptions is the right solution to this problem. Rather, I think we should investigate what is actually causing these issues and find a better solution. The fact that people aren't getting turned away in other regions is proof that the technology is feasible.

Owen

On Mar 15, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> Operators with 4 Byte ASN's are being turned away from peering in the ARIN region. The fact that there is 
> almost zero take up of 4 Byte in the region shows there is an issue that shouldn't be ignored. 
> 
> I support this proposal and would suggest that just as it specifies IPv4 in the 8.3 text it should specify
> 2 Byte ASN's. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kevin Blumberg
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
>> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 7:34 PM
>> To: Jeffrey Lyon
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-3: ASN Transfers
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 17:21, Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> From a marketing standpoint, there seems to be an understanding that
>>> lower numbered AS means better established carrier. Those looking to
>>> offer network services may wish to acquire older networks and merge
>>> into the lower numbered AS. We are AS32421, and a customer of ours was
>>> just issued a 4 digit ASN. I'd be willing to trade for aesthetic
>>> reasons ;)
>> 
>> Thanks Jeffery, this is one I've seen stated before. The other one I've read is
>> "peering relationships" - the idea being that you could assume peering
>> relationships by assuming the AS of a previously established network.
>> 
>> So we have:
>> 1) Aesthetics
>> 2) Deception
>> 
>> I have to say I remain unconvinced that this policy does anything to better
>> our community in any real way. In fact, the "deceiving folks by assuming
>> another identity" use-case is probably a net-evil.
>> 
>>> This is the only reason I can think of.
>> 
>> If anyone else can think of something more necessary, I'd love to hear it.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> ~Chris
>> 
>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
>>> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus
>>> Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection
>>> Solutions
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.