[arin-ppml] ARIN 2-Byte ASN inventory and issuance

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Apr 11 15:31:36 EDT 2016


On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:24 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pesonally, I believe we have a terminology problem more than anything
> else.
> >
> > At this time, we should no longer be even considering “2-byte” ASNs.
> >
> > There are two classes of 4-byte ASNs. The idea of 2-byte ASNs should be
> considered anachronistic.
> >
> > The classes of 4-byte ASNs are those that are ≤65535 and those that are
> ≥65536.
> >
> > The former class can be used as a 2-byte ASN in the rare case of a
> technological limitation (obsolete routing equipment or equipment with
> inadequate support for extended communities).
> >
> > The latter class cannot be used as a 2-byte ASN in such cases.
> >
> > In all cases, continuing to talk about 2-byte ASNs IMHO contributes to
> the misperception that the internet has not yet moved on.
> >
> > I believe that current policy is sufficient. I would prefer that
> operational practice actually revert to what is in policy and that we no
> longer treat 4-byte ASNs ≤65535 as being in any way special.
>
> Since parties coming to ARIN are distinguishing between these classes of
> 4-byte ASNs
> and come back explicitly asking for one ≤65535, are you suggesting that
> ARIN not hold
> these lower ones to be able to satisfy such requests?
>

I would vehemently oppose such a punitive and pointless change.  If an
applicant has no reason to prefer a low-numbered ASN, they should get a
6-digit one by default.

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160411/d2d4655f/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list