|
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-site enterprises and PI]
The idea behind possibly making the policy stricter would be to keep all of those "I want one too" people from getting an ASN number who do not have a clear need and therefore conserve resources. Only because you have the ability to give out ASNs does not me you should. Human nature dictates for most people that if it is available they want one also regardless of if the need exists. I have no problems with the phased move to 32-bit ASNs; it is a logical step towards the future. I don't see what the big deal is; although I do not write the code for the network equipment it seems that the transition should be fairly transparent since the first 65536 ASN numbers fit snuggly into the a 32-bit schema (there may be issues with the private ASNs, but those also should fairly easy to transition) so there shouldn't be much of a problem for existing users and none for new users with the proper code/equipment. Future transitions to a 64-bit or 128-bit ASN if the need should arise, again I do not see a major issue; but this is just my opinion, YMMV. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:44 PM To: Chris Burton Cc: Owen DeLong; Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; [email protected] Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote: > It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become > more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely > scenario is that they will stay the same or get far stricter as with > assignments of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. I find this hard to believe. When there is 64K times as much the resource, there is no way the policies would get stricter, because it can easily and logically be argued that they don't need to be stricter. > As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would > not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or > more years from now. So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable. > I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296; > current world population give or take a few million is hovering around > 6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother would > like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more to > make that work. Yeah, I know the calculations :). Everyone can already get an IPv4 address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there already. 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. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|