[arin-ppml] AS Number Management Study by TU Delft

[Zappie Host]

> The primary motivation for this change was that both RIPE and APNIC
noticed a large number of assigned ASNs that were not being advertised in
the Global routing tables. Approximately 21% of all ASNs are functionally
not participating in global routing.

I cant speak on APNIC's reasoning as I didnt follow it closely however I
think you misunderstood the fee schedule changes in the RIPE region in
regards to the new charge 50EUR per ASN and motivations behind it.

RIPE declared multiple times through out the last year, that they are
spending more money than they are bringing in from membership feed,
something that its not currently sustainable. Setting the 50EUR charge for
ASNs had absolutely nothing to do with how many ASNs are (or arent)
globally routed. It was just yet another revenue stream.

If you still have doubts about this point, and dont have the time to go
through the multiple video recordings of fee scheduled meetings that were
held by the NCC or go through the RIPE mailing list please simply refer to
the RIPE88 proposal changes of fees.
Three options were given, all three options solve the problem at hand which
was "RIPE needs more money" and only one of the three options had an ASN
fee associated it (which ended up being the option that was chosen by the
majority of the RIPE voting members)  the other two options proposed by the
RIPE NCC would have also solved the issue and would have had no ASN fee
implemented

Again, I just want to clarify that that the new 50EUR ASN fee within the
RIPE region has nothing to do with the percentage of routed ASNs and
everything to do with being yet another revenue stream that was chosen by
the RIPE members.

Adam B

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 4:21 AM Nachiket Kondhalkar via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> Thanks for your contribution.
>
> The primary motivation for this change was that both RIPE and APNIC
> noticed a large number of assigned ASNs that were not being advertised in
> the Global routing tables. Approximately 21% of all ASNs are functionally
> not participating in global routing.
>
> By implementing an ASN fee, they hope to have these unused numbers
> returned to the RIR in order to prevent wastage in the long term.
>
> Each have taken separate paths to execute this. RIPE has a flat €50 fee
> per ASN. While APNIC has gone for the first ASN to be free, but every
> subsequent one being charged AUD600. While APNIC policies might not impact
> hobby network growth in the future, RIPE policies might.
>
> When ARIN implemented these fees, they were justified as being a more
> financial issue to stay afloat.
>
> Definitely appreciate your perspective though.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dale W. Carder <dwcarder at es.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 6:19 PM
> To: Nachiket Kondhalkar <N.B.Kondhalkar at student.tudelft.nl>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AS Number Management Study by TU Delft
>
> [You don't often get email from dwcarder at es.net. Learn why this is
> important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
>
> Thus spake Nachiket Kondhalkar via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml at arin.net) on Wed,
> Jul 24, 2024 at 03:41:09PM +0000:
> > Hello ARIN Policy community,
> >
> > APNIC and RIPE NCC have introduced an annual ASN maintenance fee from
> January 2025. As part of a research group currently studying AS Number
> management at TU Delft, we would like to understand the perspectives of
> network administrators in reference to this change. Your experience and
> expertise will help us understand and present the consensus of the
> community through our research.
> >
> > For more information about the study:
> > https://blog/
> > .apnic.net%2F2024%2F07%2F16%2Fa-comprehensive-review-of-rir-policies-i
> > n-the-domain-of-asn-management%2F&data=05%7C02%7CN.B.Kondhalkar%40stud
> > ent.tudelft.nl%7C9bca8712ff96494667b008dcabfc52e5%7C096e524d692940308c
> > d38ab42de0887b%7C0%7C0%7C638574347408421839%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
> > JWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7
> > C%7C%7C&sdata=vPZRPXCPOUzVzRkk4Y9PW%2Bt0G1rdTPV5N2oZKIJ8wh4%3D&reserve
> > d=0
>
> For some of your questions in the survey around the perception of scaling
> concerns, as I hope you are aware, there has been a large body of work
> previously in this space.  Probably the easiest thing to point to would be
> the old IRTF RRG: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/rrg
>
> Dale
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240726/772ea52a/attachment.htm>