Philip, At 01:03 PM 15/07/2008, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Geoff, Geoff Huston said the following on 15/7/08 12:33: >> I have to agree with David Woodgate here that procedurally such reservations > in the IANA AS number registry are correctly actions taken as standards actions.Right, but the policy proposal is requesting that *APNIC* reserve 4 ASNs for documentation purposes. It made no request or implied request on IANA at all.
But at APNIC 25, prop-058 was abandoned principally on the basis that the resources allocated by IANA to APNIC must be assigned to end users for public Internet purposes to meet the terms of agreement between IANA and APNIC, and that that did not allow for reservation of resources by APNIC for non-Internet or shared regional use.
I do not believe that AS numbers would be any different in principle from IP addresses, in that they have been allocated by IANA for assignment by APNIC to end users. (Yes, the difference in sensitivity is immense between a /8 from the remaining IPv4 pool and 4 32-bit AS numbers, but the principle is the same.)
Example documentation is a base function of the technology, and is not truly a function of the Asia-Pacific region or its resources. This suggests that the proposal should go directly to the IETF. If the IPv6 documentation address range had originally been taken through APNIC prior to submission to the IETF, then I suggest that the discussion at APNIC 25 regarding prop-058 provides a more recent and therefore overriding precedent on similar issues to this proposal.
Regards,
David Woodgate