|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-siteenterprises and PI]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: Well, as I have said... having to go to 32 bit AS numbers shows that we've failed at ASN policy-making and failed at creating a scalable multihoming solution.On 28-nov-04, at 21:45, Cliff Albert wrote:Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16 bits at some point anyway.Well, how many AS numbers would you like to give out? 30000 in 20 years? 100k a year? A million in a month? 32 bits will then give you 2863 millennia, 429 centuries or 357 years, respectively.I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter, there is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issue that created them in the first place. We don't _want_ to have to give out thousands of AS numbers per month or even a year. We'd (well, I at least :) would rather that that the endsites had other means to do multihoming which wouldn't require such global resources. ASN exhaustion is IMHO just a symptom of the real problem. Enlarging the ASN space does not cure the disease, just makes it worse. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|