<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-CA" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I’m on the fence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I think the scarce resource is no longer 16-bit ASNs but is now FIB space on routers. I even know of a few where RIB space is the issue, not FIB. We’re not – that I know of – about
to hit another 512k day or similar in the next six months, but there are a lot of routers out there that can only handle 1M IPv4-sized routes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I agree with your logic (the comparison to RFC1918) but I am concerned about an explosion of ASNs and corresponding routes. I’m assuming an explosion of ASNs will equate an explosion
of routes, v4 and/or v6, as otherwise, why would you need a public ASN?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Separately, I don’t see anything wrong with the modifications proposed in the Staff Review – they seem sound, although I wish the full proposed rewritten section had been included,
in addition to the item-wise commentary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">-Adam<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F5587">Adam Thompson<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587">Consultant, Infrastructure Services<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F497D"><img width="220" height="67" style="width:2.2916in;height:.7in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D8CAF2.7EB028C0" alt="MERLIN"></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587">100 - 135 Innovation Drive<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587">Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587">(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587"><a href="https://www.merlin.mb.ca/"><span style="color:#1F5587">https://www.merlin.mb.ca</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:black"><img border="0" width="16" height="16" style="width:.1666in;height:.1666in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01D8CAF2.7EB028C0"></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;color:#1F5587"><a href="https://teams.microsoft.com/l/chat/0/0?users=athompson@merlin.mb.ca"><span style="color:#1F5587">Chat
with me on Teams</span></a></span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott Leibrand<br>
<b>Sent:</b> September 13, 2022 12:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> ARIN <info@arin.net><br>
<b>Cc:</b> PPML <arin-ppml@arin.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I support this. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scott<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Sep 13, 2022, at 7:46 AM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The following Draft Policy has been revised:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* ARIN-2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Revised text is below and can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_2/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_2/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process
(PDP). Specifically, these principles are:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Technically Sound<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Supported by the Community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The PDP can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sean Hopkins<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Senior Policy Analyst<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policy ARIN-2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Problem Statement: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The current requirements for getting an ASN have resulted in confusion particularly for new entrants, who have their hands more than full with the mechanics of getting BGP up and running. The availability of 32 bit ASNs provides an opportunity
for the removal of unnecessary constraints and processes for the allocation of ASNs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ARIN does not provide guidance to use RFC1918 space if possible and likewise ARIN should not require the use of private ASNs in preference to public ASNs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further Technical Rationale:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Four octet (32 bit) ASNs were defined in May 2007 in RFC 4893. It has taken several years for routing equipment in general use to catch up, but today 32 bit ASNs are generally accepted and it is rare that an organization which has been
issued a 32 bit ASN comes back to ARIN and says they need a 16 bit ASN instead.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The austerity measure of requiring extensive documentation to get an ASN is left over from the days of 16 bit ASNs (total space 65000). It is no longer appropriate and we should align our conservation requirements with those found in other
32-bit spaces (total space four billion). Consider:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A /32 of IPv6 space is the default allocation and will be assigned to any ISP that requests it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Temporary assignment of a /32 of IPv4 space can be acquired on most residential ISPs by issuing a DHCP request.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We propose making issuance of the first 32 bit ASN for any ORGID (or each site for organizations that have number resources under multiple discrete networks policy) be pro-forma upon request. If an org’s technical people think they need
a public ASN, they probably do!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Policy statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Replace the entirety of Section 5, which currently reads:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are a limited number of available Autonomous System Numbers (AS Numbers), therefore, it is important to determine which sites require unique ASNs and which do not. If a unique ASN is not required for a given network design, one or
more of the ASN reserved for private use should be utilized. Those numbers are: 64512 through 65534 and 4200000000 through 4294967294 inclusive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In order to be assigned an ASN, each requesting organization must provide ARIN with verification that it requires a unique routing policy, such as a plan:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To originate announcement of IP Number Resources via an accepted protocol (such as Border Gateway Protocol) from an ASN different than that of its upstream provider;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To multihome a site with one or more Autonomous Systems; or<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To use an ASN to interconnect with other Autonomous Systems.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ASNs are issued based on current need, as set out in this section 5.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With the following new Section 5:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Any organization may be issued a single Autonomous System Number (ASN) upon request. Organizations that have space issued under Multiple Discrete Networks policy may be issued one ASN per discrete network upon request.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Additional ASN requests should include proof of the requestor's need for a unique routing policy, or other technical justification for the need for more than one ASN.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Timetable for implementation: Immediate<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>