Question of AS

[Bob Fink]

At 10:15 AM 4/24/2000 +0900, Ettikan Kandasamy wrote:


>Does this is accepted by the RIRs ????

I believe they support this.


Bob

===
>Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com> on 04/22/2000 11:29:19 AM
>
>To:   ksbn@kt.co.kr
>cc:   6Bone-KR <6bone-kr@6bone.ne.kr>, 6Bone(WIDE) <6bone-jp@wide.ad.jp>,
>       6bone(Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to base64 by zephyr.isi.edu id SAB03844
>
>$BNO(B) <6bone@ISI.EDU> (bcc: Ettikan Kandasamy/NTTMSC)
>
>Subject:  Re: Question of AS
>
>
>
>  From my view of the 6bone, most participants seem to be using the ASN they
>use for their IPv4 backbones.
>
>I'd also suspect that in the longer run it would ease migration from IPv4
>only backbone to an IPv6 capable backbone if you used the same ASN. Those
>organisations I have been involved with certainly are adopting that
>strategy. (Their argument is that they want the IPv6 capable part of their
>infrastructure to be an integral part of the existing infrastructure, not a
>separate network they have to somehow peer with.)
>
>philip
>--
>
>At 10:44 22/04/00 +0900, ksb wrote:
> >How are you?
> >
> >I have used same IPv6 AS number for IPv4 on
> >my experiment network.
> >Then I have a question for the  IPv6 AS number.
> >
> >What is recommend that same IPv6 AS munber
> >for IPv4   or    different IPv6 AS number for using
> >IPv4?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >ksb
> >
> >--
> >   Kim, Sahng-Beom / Korea Telecom
> >   TEL :    +82-42-870-8322
> >   FAX :    +82-42-870-8329
> >   E-mail :  ksbn@kt.co.kr
> >--
> >
> >
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Philip Smith       vm: 6178202       ph: +61 7 3238 8202
>Consulting Engineering, Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
>--------------------------------------------------------
>