I think that the pilot projects, testbeds or trainings are/could be already covered by the temporary assignments for which I think this proposal was not intended to change anything.

I think that one 16bit ASN per LIR limit is not prudent as LIR != route end point, this notion that LIR is also "end customer" or the sole user of the network has been established in the last few years with the last /8 policy where I guess most of the new LIRs are actually also the route end point for their allocation, but if you look back LIRs were/are the middle-man between RIR and end customer which actually (could) need their own ASN so the need for the 16bit ASN exists at a third party and not directly with the LIR.

I guess the need for 16bit ASN and with that requirements to get a 16bit ASN should stay unchanged but on the other hand the limitations for 32bit ASNs could be more relaxed.

Uros

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Wilfried Woeber <Woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:

David Huberman wrote:

> Thank you, ytti.
>
> So let's start with the basics. Does the following text allow the NCC to meet the needs of network operators today?
>
> "A new AS number is only assigned when the network architecture

I would be more edxplicit and more flexible here, by adding e.g.

or project

> has a need that cannot be satisfied with an existing AS number."

Looking at SDN stuff and pilot projects or testbeds, or even trainings
or workshops, I can see the need to interconnect such projects with
the 'real' net and to use globally unique AS numbers.

I do understanf that "network architecture" can be interpreted as a
rather wide and flexible term, but we should try to provide as good
guidance as we can to support the evaluation of requests by the IPRAs.

Wilfried

> There will be more policy text. But again, let's start with -- and agree on -- the basics.
>
> Thanks!
> David
>
> David R Huberman
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
> Microsoft Corporation