Re: [sig-policy] Comments for prop-105 and prop-107.
On Aug 26, 2013, at 06:02 , David Farmer <farmer at umn dot edu> wrote:
> On 8/26/13 03:22 , TACHIBANA toshio wrote:
> ...
>> For prop-107, while there was no concern expressed over the proposal,
>> some questions were also raised about the needs of the proposal:
>>
>> <prop-107 related question as below>
> ...
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Q2. If the answer to Q1 is yes, in what kind of cases would one wish
>> to transfer ASN while you can still receive assignments from APNIC?
>> ----
>> We tried some case studies but one has identified clear needs:
>>
>> a. M&A or business purchase
>> You can transfer IPv4 and ASN at the same time under the
>> current policy.
>>
>> b. To receive 2 byte ASN rather than 4 byte
>> Assignment rate of 4 byte ASN in the region is relatively high,
>> and there are still 2 byte ASN remaining in APNIC pool.
>>
>> c. Transfer a part of IPv4 allocations and ASN
>> If IPv4 allocations are only partially transferred to another
>> organization, the transfer source is likely to need the
>> existing ASN to advertise the remaining IPv4 blocks, which
>> were not transferred.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Related to Q2., there was a comment expressed that this policy may only
>> apply to a very rare case.
>> e.g., an organization has multiple ASNs, and some of it is unused, and
>> there is an organization that wishes to receive this particular ASN
>> range, without M&A or business purchase.
>
> There are two other potential use cases;
>
> - Similar to your last comment, organization whats a low numbered 2, 3, or 4 digit ASN and is willing to buy unused ASN from someone else.
This seems to be a unique pathology to the ARIN region. Other regions don't seem to have any difficulty with 4-byte ASNs.
Owen