[sig-policy] Update on prop-032-v001: 4-byte AS number policy proposal
- To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Subject: [sig-policy] Update on prop-032-v001: 4-byte AS number policy proposal
- From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:36:54 +1100
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi,This policy proposal was submitted to all five RIRs in early December. In the intervening period the discussion on the ARIN policy discussion mailing list has undoubtedly been the most active of all the regions. For those who do not follow the ARIN list, the points arising from that discussion as they relate to changes in the text of the policy so far appear to be:
a) that the section on terminology should use a period as a separator between the high and low 16 bit fields rather than a colon as originally proposed, in order to reduce confusion with delimiters in BGP communities
b) that the proposal replace the term "2 byte" with "16 bit" and "4 byte" with "32 bit" due to the somewhat imprecise nature of the definition of a "byte"
Other topics of discussion on the ARIN list have been- whether the terminology and nomenclature sessions should be included in the policy proposal
- whether the specification of dates are reasonable in this context- whether the policy alters the current sequential number allocation registry practice - the criteria (if any) that should be applied to a request for an AS number of the "other" type
- the desireable size of the private use AS number poolNo further changes to the policy are proposed at this point in time as a clear outcome of these discussions, as the discussion has raised points in favour and against making further changes to the policy proposal.
Its also worth noting that this is intended to be a temporary policy associated with transition to the larger number pool, and at the end of the period, proposed to be 1 January 2010, this policy is no longer in force, and the larger 32-bit AS number space will be managed as a single pool using the current policies and procedures.