North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Low AS - Number

  • From: Jared Mauch
  • Date: Mon Apr 21 12:55:10 2003

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:14:54PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:10:34PM -0400, Mike (meuon) Harrison wrote:
> > 
> > ------- And to get completely off topic.. Why/how would you use 
> > an ASN for marketing purposes? And should this even be considered..
> > except as a tongue in cheek geek thing? 
> 
> Nonsense. One of the first things new/large companies do is buy someone
> with a low ASN and take it over. Look at QWest, Verio, etc. In fact,
> pretty much the only exception to this rule is Cogent, who is still using
> 16631 instead of 174 or 4006.

	Hmm.

	Verio, Level(3) and others have much lower asns than
they are using.  Level(3) even has AS1 these days under their control
but you don't see them rolling their network into that ASN and instead
are decommisioning the AS1 network.

	the issues surrounding a low asn are entirely similar to
states like delaware and others.. people will pay for a lower digit
license plate.  IMHO, if someone can justify the asn and someone else
has a spare because of the economy and they want to pay some price in
addition to the arin, ripe, (insert other rir here) transfer fees
that's fine by me as long as whois has the correct data when we need
to hunt them down for net.abuse.

	- jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.