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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 23 23:18:07 EDT 2012

On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 3/16/2012 2:23 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
>> The knowledge that route (a) was originated by AS (x) is only meaningful insofar as one has some set of high-confidence beliefs/expectations about AS (x). However, if AS (x) can change hands at will, henceforth no such confidence will be possible for the overwhelming majority if not all ASes.
> I would point out that this fact is *already* true, as ASNs are transferred through merger and acquisition all the time, and have been for over a decade.
> I don't see anyone proposing a policy where an entity is required to return (and have permanently marked as unavailable) their ASN when ownership changes... I see, for instance, that AS 1 and AS 701 are still out there, despite the above happening several times, and yet nothing terrible has happened as a result.

I don't see acquiring the reputation of a network when acquiring the entire network as being all that likely to be harmful. At the time of acquisition, the network is still behaving according to its reputation and what is done will cause necessary modifications to that reputation as time goes by.

On the other hand, I can see tremendous potential for mischief when acquiring an AS Number on the open market without having to take on the operation of said network as part of the package.

I think these are very different scenarios.

Again, I think we're seeing enough problems created by allowing transfers with IPv4 addresses that unless there is truly a compelling argument to be made for doing this with ASNs (and so far none has been presented), we should at the very least hold off on expanding to ASNs until such time as we sort out the issues with IPv4 transfers.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list