On 28/Feb/15 03:08, David Farmer wrote: > > > If you only look at it through the lens of the current multi-homing > requirement for an ASN then you don't need it, it is totally > anticipatory and only a future need, but that is self-fulfilling. I'm > suggesting that multi-homing is too narrow of a definition of need for > an ASN. The PI assignment and what every justified that should also > equally justify the need for ASN assignment. The PI assignment was > intended to be portable, also assigning an ASN simply is intended to > facilitate that portability. I'm saying that the need for portability > is also a need for an ASN, if you look beyond multi-homing.
True, PI is meant to be portable, which is fine for IPv6 because we have a lot of address space. But don't you worry that you will blow through 4.2 billion ASN's soon if PI allocation policy evolves to become liberal that 4.2 billion PI allocations become a reality? Mark. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
