[143418] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP support for use of 4-byte ASNs in peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Tue Aug 9 10:25:06 2011
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:24:26 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <02748298-1F7D-42EB-82EC-81D5FA7C22F2@arin.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 09/08/2011 14:47, John Curran wrote:
> At ARIN, we are still having parties returning 4-byte ASN's (seeking 2-byte instead),
> indicating that the 4-byte ones are not sufficiently accepted in peering to be usable.
> This is obviously a less than desirable situation, and it appears that it is not trending
> towards resolution at this time.
At INEX, we see 60% of IXP connections which can handle ASN32 natively.
However, INEX is a small IXP and I haven't seen similar figures from other
IXPs which could validate this 60/40 split.
Having said that, in the IXP world most new service providers connect into
route servers, so there is often no perceived requirement for direct
ASN32->ASN16 interconnection - the intersection of new service providers
and ASN32 holders is quite large. And if you really want a bilateral
peering relationship, there's no reason not to use AS23456.
> Thoughts?
- interior BGP community management is great fun with an ASN32, oh yes.
- i don't have much sympathy for people who whine about not being able to
support ASN32 peerings. There is no good reason for this these days.
- from personal experience, I understand why ASN32 is less popular.
However, it's certainly usable.
Nick
