> On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pesonally, I believe we have a terminology problem more than anything else. > > At this time, we should no longer be even considering “2-byte” ASNs. > > There are two classes of 4-byte ASNs. The idea of 2-byte ASNs should be > considered anachronistic. > > The classes of 4-byte ASNs are those that are ≤65535 and those that are > ≥65536. > > The former class can be used as a 2-byte ASN in the rare case of a > technological limitation (obsolete routing equipment or equipment with > inadequate support for extended communities). > > The latter class cannot be used as a 2-byte ASN in such cases. > > In all cases, continuing to talk about 2-byte ASNs IMHO contributes to the > misperception that the internet has not yet moved on. > > I believe that current policy is sufficient. I would prefer that operational > practice actually revert to what is in policy and that we no longer treat > 4-byte ASNs ≤65535 as being in any way special.
Since parties coming to ARIN are distinguishing between these classes of 4-byte ASNs and come back explicitly asking for one ≤65535, are you suggesting that ARIN not hold these lower ones to be able to satisfy such requests? Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
