|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-siteenterprises and PI]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote: Of course, every ASN would not be active. But if we'd have 32 bit ASNs, there would be "no need" (or so folks would argue) to be strict in the policies -- everyone and their uncle could have one. Folks could even get ones for their homes, theis SOHO deployments, or their 3-person, on-the-side consulting companies. And logically, each of these should have their own PI prefixes and a slot in the global routing table.Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and active. You and I both know this doesn't begin to approach reality. Slightly more than half of current ASNs are actually in the routing table. The ASN issuance rate is not likely to go up simply because we go to 32 bit ASNs. Probably we are really talking about a need for 20 bit ASNs or so, generally, but, 32 bits is a much more convenient boundary for lots of code implementations and lots of hardware, so, 32 bits is the chosen number for the sake of simplicity. Scalable? NO. Not just the number of routes, but also the churn those routes would make.. Oh god. It's better to try to stick to 16 bit ASNs for now, and make stricter policies and reclaim the space if needed. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|