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 Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote: --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:44 AM +0200 Pekka Savola <[email protected]> wrote:And they have been under constant attack since the beginning. Lots of folks (like you :) have been suggesting creating all kinds of PI space, to use more of the bits because they are available. The pressure is building up. Do you think the situation would be any different with 32-bit space? We could certainly _try_ to be strict (provided that there's sufficient consensus in the community that this is the way to go), but similar to the v6 allocation policies, sooner or later it would likely budge in some direction. Agree. I think the RIRs, despite the resolution how to go forward, take heed from this.Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if they wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be very difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there is so vast resource to be used.It needs to be strict because, as you have pointed out, the assignment of an ASN has potential consequences beyond simply ASN exhaustion. The current ASN policies are not there primarily to keep from running out of ASNs. The general attitude towards this from the RIRs has been "32 bit ASNs are coming soon anyway, so, ASN exhaustion is not the issue". -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|