Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN

To: David Woodgate <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [New Policy Proposal] prop-114: Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
From: Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev at dcs1 dot biz>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 13:59:37 +0800
Cc: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dcs1.biz; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=eQjjTDi/IOF9bfQWUfuOlYrYkmDPUGml1s/YfRNqyqs=; b=MHsm08vq7SSXUwZtulocbq1CEtxQbXpkvk6Pyk/aD8jtyjCnD+ZBM7D63vAua0b3Ly YAMnekj0h1DBHhYch0aSt5cj/3zhZJpgQL9M40h30FQVOmKTe0bIfN82SoiYiJuI/1N3 absGYTQtmcTkVABfrVm7dbq8tBY2PkQ/tLyyc=
In-reply-to: <54F53C05.1080400 at gmail dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:43 PM, David Woodgate <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com> wrote:

So I feel that:
- 4-byte ASs should simply be allocated upon request, with existing checks removed;

OK. I agree with the reasoning that ASNs are not scarce. But see below.

- Reasonable annual fees (for example, $ per AS per year) could be charged as a disincentive for frivolous requests.

Any fees would be too high for small operators, and trivially low for someone with a /15

- Or a cap could be imposed on the number of AS numbers allocated per account;

- Or a combination of cap and charging; for example, up to xx ASs per account are free, and then each additional AS will be charged at $yy per AS per year.

One ASN free for each /24 allocated? This means we will at worst "over-allocate" 0.4% of all ASN space

- Existing constraints should remain for 2-byte ASs

I do not understand this. Why are 2byte ASNs special? Is there new equipment being deployed that needs 2-byte ASNs? Is this a prestige thing?

(Serious question): Why would an operator prefer a 2byte over a 4byte? I do not type in my ASN very often.

--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://sg.linkedin.com/in/ghane