North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Low AS - Number
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 [email protected] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.