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]

  • From: Pekka Savola
  • Date: Tue Nov 30 01:13:00 2004

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.

People might argue it, but, I am not convinced they would succeed in that
argument.  If you want an ASN for something other than connecting to the
internet for multihoming or other unique routing policy, then, make one up.
Doesn't matter whether it's 16 or 32 bits.  Also, there are a whole slew
of private ASNs reserved for just such a purpose if you want to retain
compatibility with existing ASN numbering.
Multihoming can be such a reason. Get DSL and cable to your home, request an AS number, request PI space, run BGP to multihome, etc.

OTOH, I have a SOHO with a legitimate ASN and protable IPv4 space.  Who
are you to tell me that it isn't legitimate for me to use it in this manner?
Why do you get to decide that my SOHO is less worthy of PI space and the
ability to reliably multihome just because my organization is small?
Because I have a similar organization myself, and I'm unselfish enough to realize that the organization is not sufficiently relevant in the global scale to be using such a mechanism.

Scalable? NO.  Not just the number of routes, but also the churn those
routes would make.. Oh god.

So we return to the need to separate the end-point identifier from the routing identifier and come up with a routing scheme that allows routing assignments to be dynamic and flexible independent of the layer 3/4 endpoint identifier.
Yes. You seem to be arguing that because we don't have such identifier split _today_, we must open the doors to give _everyone_ PI and ASN and to pollute the global routing table.

I say we must close the doors even more, so that those who would need multihoming solution would pick the one based on identifier split, instead of getting the one which pollutes the global resource.

If we make getting PI/ASN too "cheap" (using various metrics for "cheap"), nobody wants to get an identifier split solution.

Obviuosly, you don't subscribe to the premise that regardless of reclamation,
we will run out of 16 bit ASNs soon enough.  That's fine, you may be right.
However, from where I'm sitting, I think we will.  I also think that the
$500 up front cost and $100 annual renewal associated with an ASN are
decent incentive for people not to get them unless they have a legitimate
use for them.  Private ASNs are too easy and cost nothing.
if the prices were one or two orders of magnitude higher, that might be true. That's way too cheap as it is. 10000$ upfront, 5000$/yr for renewal might scare away who _really_ don't need them. Have the RIRs donate the markup to ISOC or whoever and we're done.

--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings