[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at v4escrow.net
Fri Nov 13 10:07:18 CET 2015
Hi, how would you explain it when a company (non-member) would ask why can a new LIR still receive a 16bit ASN and they can't? my 2 cents, elvis Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device. PS: apologies for the top-post > On Nov 13, 2015, at 00:46, Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > >> Thinking out loud: We could also apply the "last /8 policy" to this. >> After it goes into effect, each LIR can request one and only one 16b ASN. >> 32b ASNs are allocated as normal (with the question asked, but not >> evalutated). > > I think that we are already beyond the point of handing out 1* 16b ASn to each LIR and there isn't that much left in the free pool I'm guessing .. ( that is my gut feeling .. ) > > But the NCC should be able to answer the total number in the RIPE pool ... > > Erik Bais > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 Policy Proposal Withdrawn (Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]