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: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Tue Nov 30 15:53:52 2004
Actually, no need for trouble with the existing private ASNs. Afterall,
RFC 1918 is not exactly taken from any particular end of the IPv4 space.
The same situation can exist with private ASNs... They simply become
a hole in the list.

I don't think we need stricter ASN policies. I think the current policies
are quite adequate. If you think that the current policies are not sufficiently
strict, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you think they are
insufficient.

In any case, there isn't a land-rush for ASNs under current policy as far as
I can tell, and, I don't think increasing the available bits will change that.

Owen

--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:38 -0800 Chris Burton <[email protected]> wrote:

	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.

Attachment: pgp00141.pgp
Description: PGP signature