[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications
hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 22:33:36 EDT 2021
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 8:39 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:52 PM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > Replace
> > “Sites that do not require a unique AS Number should use one or more of
> the AS Numbers reserved for private use.”
> > with
> > “Private ASNs should be used only when there is no plan to use them on
> the public Internet.”
> This is factually incorrect. It's uncommon but legitimate practice to
> employ a private AS number which is dropped from the path by your
> upstream provider.
Practically, I don’t agree. But I don’t ever recall seeing it. Im my
experience, private ASN use is rare.
[ clip ]
> 3. “AS Numbers are issued based on current need. An organization should
> request an AS Number only when it is already multihomed or will immediately
> become multihomed.” All ARIN delegations are based on current needs, and
> some customers aren’t aware they need network plans when they request an AS
> Number. Additionally, clarification that some organizations may have a
> unique need for an AS Number outside of utilizing a unique routing policy,
> such as BGP.
> Can't we just be rid of justified needs analysis for AS numbers? What
> exactly is the objective of preventing someone who thinks they want an
> AS number from getting one? There aren't really any scarcity issues
> and having or lacking an AS number doesn't particularly change one's
> ability to introduce routes into the public BGP table.
An ASN is handy for single homed networks with multiple ingress or exit
points as a collective: “multi discreet networks”. That policy narrative
may need tweaking. In 2021, ARIN policy should probably work to less define
technical parameters of how to use an ASN.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML