On 2015 Nov 12 (Thu) at 18:13:56 +0200 (+0200), Saku Ytti wrote: :On 12 November 2015 at 09:53, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: :> Just to play the devil's advocate, who is to evaluate and understand these :> "cannot be satisfied" reasons? RIPE IPRAs are typically not BGP experts. :> :> Not saying that this is not a good starting point, but we always need to :> keep in mind that there are good people at the NCC who need to evaluate :> these requests, and they might not all have the in-depth understanding :> of technology... : :You should be saying this. This is what we got from RIPE NCC trying to :pull it off. And I agree with them. If hostmasters need to decide, we :need to tell them what are the rules. i.e. w need to iterate :acceptable uses, which I don't want. I don't expect to know all use :cases. : :I say this, clearly arrogantly, I think correct approach is: : :a) 32b ASN, question asked in form, but not evaluated (just to educate :ourselves, why do people think they need ASNs) large limit per :organisation, like 1000 ASN per organisation (LIR fees are low enough :to justify buying another LIR if you need more ASN). :b) 16b ASN, must not be stub network, must transit someone (if we can :verify multihoming today, we can verify transiting tomorrow) : Thinking out loud: We could also apply the "last /8 policy" to this. After it goes into effect, each LIR can request one and only one 16b ASN. 32b ASNs are allocated as normal (with the question asked, but not evalutated). -- Maintainer's Motto: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke.