North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Ettiquette and rules regarding Hijacked ASN's or IP space?
On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:04:22PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > excellent point :) the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' was just > > non-abuser/abuser. Certianly ARIN's requirements for ASN ownership are > > simple enough, be multihomed and have a 'unique' routing policy. If you > > need an ASN likely you are already multihomed and have a 'unique' routing > > policy, eh? > > It's not even THAT difficult...all you have to be is multihomed _or_ have > a 'unique' routing policy. > > Being multihomed by itself is trivial and plenty of justification...does > anybody have some examples of 'unique' routing policies, that require > ASNs, that don't require or imply multihoming? For example, while > anycasting is a good example of a potential use of an ASN without > requiring multihoming, it's kind of implied that they're at least > purchasing transit from multiple organizations (if not truly multihomed) > and could easily justify an ASN without having to specify their unique > routing policy. > > What sorts of 'unique' routing policies justify an ASN? Anything weird, bizaare, or different. Like once every year when some ip/colo provider decides they want to sell local peering routes or want to give every datacenter an ASN, or when some route optimization company decides they need a huge block of ASNs for...well...nevermind, or when someone decides that they need a special ASN dedicated to acting as a border between their reserved asn customers and the rest of the world... -- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
|