I tend to agree with Scott. In particular, the rewording proposed by Chris
would make using BGP the ONLY protocol that would require a unique AS number, as
opposed to the original wording and Scott's version, which would make BGP an
example of such a situation.
On 7/20/2021 11:29 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 12:52 PM ARIN <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
[...]
Another way to address the issue Chris raised here would be to just add the word
"with" before Border Gateway Protocol, so it reads "...using a unique routing
policy, such as with Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) ..."
[...]
“AS Numbers should be requested when an organization has network plans ready
and is either planning to use a unique routing policy (such as BGP) or has a
unique need for an AS Number.”
Adding "with", so it reads "(such as with BGP)" would also be a good
clarification here.
-Scott
(Something wonky with the quoting happened above; I think my email client lost a
layer of >'s, and the deleted quoted text from the ARIN announcement had lots of
underscores where there should have been text, making it almost unreadable. I
hope people can get my point from context. Unfortunately, I already deleted
Chris's email so I don't have the revised proposal in front of me to paste back in.)
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
