[arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

[Chris Woodfield]

And I’d point to the evidence of a transfer market specifically for 16-bit ASNs as good evidence of this.

That said, I’d like to understand better the relative imbalance of supply and demand for these resources in the various RIR regions before I form a conclusion as to whether that imbalance justifies a policy change to resolve.

-C

> On Feb 6, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Job Snijders <job at instituut.net> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:27:55AM -0800, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>> RFC8092 was published roughly a year ago. I can’t imagine that we’ll
>> see universal support for it anytime soon, and there’s plenty of gear
>> out there on the internet today that won’t be getting a software
>> update to support it. 
> 
> It'll be end of 2018 for general available software on the majority of
> platforms - and for a company like NTT, a deployment of configurations
> that use large community are likely to be in 2019 or maybe even 2020.
> I don't intend this statement as a roadmap announcement, but rather to
> illustrate the timescale.
> 
> I'm tracking large community support here: http://largebgpcommunities.net/implementations/
> 
>> I have encountered exactly this scenario, albeit on a private network,
>> but I can’t imagine this not being a real-world issue for multiple
>> operators with public 32-bit ASNs.
> 
> yes, there are real-world issues for 32-bit ASN users today related to
> communities. If I'd have to do a greenfield deployment of a new transit
> network today, using a 16-bit ASN would be a blocking requirement due to
> BGP communities. I imagine that for a number of years to come 16-bit
> ASNs will be more desirable than 32-bit ASNs.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
>