[arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY 2012-3: ASN TRANSFERS
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Mar 30 12:54:00 EDT 2012
On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:28 AM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
> You seem to be saying that it's not actual reputation that is being
> traded, but some sort of misperception that ASNs in a certain number
> range bring credibility. So rather than trade on actual reputation
> (which I would question in itself), you are advocating creating a market
> where a fake perception of reputation is what's traded. That doesn't
> sound to me like a market that will efficiently allocate resources,
> although it may efficiently allocate misperception.
> IPv4 number transfers make sense. IPv6 number transfers do not. I am
> on the fence about ASN transfers, but it's arguments like these in favor
> that are making me increasingly wary.
IMO it's not about reputation, it's about ease of use. A shorter ASN is easier to remember, say, and recognize. When I was setting up peering at a former job, we needed a new ASN for the peering network, and had a few unused ASNs to choose from. We chose the one that was easiest for humans (22212). If we could've easily acquired a 3-digit ASN instead, that would've been even better.
There are fewer than 9999 companies doing peering at IXs, and likely fewer than 999 that have more than a few dozen peers. IMO there's no good reason any of them should have to use a hard-to-remember random 5-digit ASN for peering if they don't want to.
More information about the ARIN-PPML