Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "Multihoming not required for ASN (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01)"

Sun Mar 31 09:13:38 UTC 2019

I think can be even a bit shorter.

I'm waiting for the impact analysis from AfriNIC, in case I need to take anything else in consideration, but a few days ago, I've already drafted a v2.

This is what I've now (including a shorter version from Owen suggestion):

7.2 Eligibility for an AS Number assignment

It is important to determine which sites require unique AS Numbers.  Sites which do not require a unique AS Number should use one or more of the AS Numbers reserved for private use. Those numbers are: 64,512 - 65,535 and 4,200,000,000 - 4,294,967,294 (RFC1930, RFC6996 and possible future updates).

In order to qualify for an AS number, the requesting organization must be an AFRINIC resource member and fulfill one of the following requirements:

7.4.1 A unique routing policy or
7.4.2 Interconnection with other ASNs requiring a unique ASN.

An organization will also be eligible if it can demonstrate that it will meet any of the above criteria upon receiving an ASN (or within a reasonably short time thereafter).

All requests for ASNs under these criteria will be evaluated using the guidelines described in RFC1930 "Guidelines for the creation, selection and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)”.


El 31/3/19 8:48, "Frank Habicht" <geier at> escribió:

    On 30/03/2019 01:11, Owen DeLong wrote:
    > Since we’re no longer limited to 16 bit ASNs, personally, I think that the requirement beyond the annual fees to maintaining an ASN is an anachronism and we should simply state that ASNs are available to anyone who meets one of the two following requirements:
    > 	1.	A unique routing policy
    > or	2.	Interconnection with other ASNs involving an exterior gateway protocol which requires a unique ASN.
    > I believe that covers pretty much every circumstance in which an ASN would be useful and gives tremendous leeway in obtaining ASNs where needed.
    I agree, this is the right direction to take; more permissive.
    > Is there any reason we can’t make the policy that simple?
    Can't see any.
    > Owen
    RPD mailing list
    RPD at

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list