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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Thu Mar 15 20:52:04 EDT 2012

On 3/15/12 18:40 CDT, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Jeffrey Lyon 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 ;)
>> This is the only reason I can think of.
>> Thanks,
> Given the coming exhaustion of 2byte ASN, and the difficulties with
> 4bytes, given my druthers I would much rather get one on the transfer
> market for a reasonable price so that I can use the nice community
> attribute layout and keep all my old gear, have zero inter-operation
> concerns, and appear to be an older established network.
> Yes, I am one of those guys who try to ensure those whom I consult for
> and advise get a 2byte while they still can. Nobody has complained that
> they wanted the 4byte instead.

Also, there seems to be a lot of 2 byte ASNs assigned but not visible in 
the routing system, over 16,000.  Yes, at least some of those are 
actually in use, but not visible to the majority of the routing system. 
  But, I suspect the vast majority of those 16,000 are just not in use 
any longer.  See;


> Or suppose I am transferring addresses and I want the routing gear along
> with it, but this is not quite an M&A or structuring it as one has its
> own disadvantages.
> Or I was your customer and you has an extra one and I used it for all
> this time and I would like it to outlive our relationship and I dont
> want to redo all my stuff.

These seem a little hypothetical to me, but still possible.

> I support directed transfers of all resources. Picking and choosing is
> not quite right, even if it might be more prudent, where there to be no
> identified benefits.

I'm NOT ready to go all the way and include IPv6, at least not yet. 
Before allowing IPv6 specified transfers, I think we need a lot more 
discussion and thought about technical issues like sparse aggregation, 
etc...  Bedsides there is no good reason to institute a recycling 
program for IPv6, not yet, maybe some day.

Although, I'm ready to take the next step and include ASNs, in 
particular 2-byte ASN.  I think I like Kevin's suggestion to restrict 
ASN transfers to 2-byte ASNs only, at least for now.  We are running low 
and there can be valid reasons to recycle 2-byte ASNs, no where near as 
strong of reasons as the reasons to recycle IPv4 addresses, but still valid.

> Support.

I think I support it too, but think I would like the 2-byte ASN 
restriction added.

If we decide to not allow ASN transfers then we should probably work on 
an awareness campaign and get people to return unused 2-byte ASN, maybe 
get the Board to approve some kind of discount for the return of 2-byte 
ASNs.  ARIN could even, put something on the annual invoice, let people 
know they have an ASN that doesn't seem to be in the routing system, and 
allow then to return it and save a $100 or $250 on the invoice.

This is NOT a critical issue like IPv4 exhaustion, but we probably 
shouldn't completely ignore the issue either.  Fundamentally, I prefer a 
voluntary transfer system to most any kind of reclamation system, both 
for IPv4 addresses and 2-byte ASNs.

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list