I think that the pilot projects, testbeds or trainings are/could be already covered by the temporary assignments for which I think this proposal was not intended to change anything.
I think that one 16bit ASN per LIR limit is not prudent as LIR != route end point, this notion that LIR is also "end customer" or the sole user of the network has been established in the last few years with the last /8 policy where I guess most of the new LIRs are actually also the route end point for their allocation, but if you look back LIRs were/are the middle-man between RIR and end customer which actually (could) need their own ASN so the need for the 16bit ASN exists at a third party and not directly with the LIR. I guess the need for 16bit ASN and with that requirements to get a 16bit ASN should stay unchanged but on the other hand the limitations for 32bit ASNs could be more relaxed. Uros On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Wilfried Woeber <[email protected]> wrote: > David Huberman wrote: > > > Thank you, ytti. > > > > So let's start with the basics. Does the following text allow the NCC > to meet the needs of network operators today? > > > > "A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture > > I would be more edxplicit and more flexible here, by adding e.g. > > or project > > > has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS number." > > Looking at SDN stuff and pilot projects or testbeds, or even trainings > or workshops, I can see the need to interconnect such projects with > the 'real' net and to use globally unique AS numbers. > > I do understanf that "network architecture" can be interpreted as a > rather wide and flexible term, but we should try to provide as good > guidance as we can to support the evaluation of requests by the IPRAs. > > Wilfried > > > There will be more policy text. But again, let's start with -- and agree > on -- the basics. > > > > Thanks! > > David > > > > David R Huberman > > Principal, Global IP Addressing > > Microsoft Corporation > > >
