On 9 November 2015 at 18:57, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey David, > Can the authors, the chairs, the staff, or any knowledgeable observer please > outline where the impasse is? The impasse is that some people were afraid that too relaxed rules may encourage abuse, such as someone requesting 2**32 ASNs. To facilitate this, original proposal limited how many ASN single LIR (organisation) may register, essentially creating YRC to ASN, if you need more, register new LIR. The number was higher than any current organisation has ASNs for. People complained about that solution, because number was arbitrary. I suppose we need to get collection of non-arbitrary numbers from IEEE for this use. Another solution was attempted to add YRC to ASN itself, that was voted against. Personally I'd go with the original proposal and limit ASN per organisation. I'd also like to solve 16b ASN shortage by limiting single 16b ASN to organisation who has downstream public ASNs (because communities are important for downstream to signal information to upstream). For 32b ASN, I'd want reason for request to be submitted, but not evaluated. So that over time RIPE can present aggregated findings on how and why AS numbers are being used. Some suggested to iterate reasons for AS assignment, but I think that is counter-productive to innovation. Notion that we know of all use-cases there can be, is bit arrogant. -- ++ytti
