[133985] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Dec 21 02:02:12 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101221061517.GI5595@hezmatt.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:01:40 -0800
To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 20, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:49:49PM +0200, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
>> I'm kinda fearing this in South Africa, as we have a few large =20
>> incumbents who aren't really driving -NG versions of protocols.
>>=20
>> They also have a "prove to us it's broken, and we may look at it in a =
=20
>> few months' time"-attitude towards it. :O
>=20
> That would be why 32-bit ASNs have been "requestable" for the last =
couple of
> years(?); you could have been prodding providers with "it doesn't =
work, fix
> it" for a while now.
>=20
> - Matt
>=20
> --=20
> "For once, Microsoft wasn't exaggerating when they named it the 'Jet =
Engine'
> -- your data's the seagull."
> -- Chris Adams
I'll point out that there really isn't any alternative at this point. =
This approach
will issue 16-bit compatible ASNs as long as they last. Once they're =
gone,
it's not like there was some new 16-bit compatible alternative.
Owen
