[75932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sun Nov 28 17:41:31 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041128204533.GA22191@oisec.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:40:59 +0100
To: Cliff Albert <cliff@oisec.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 28-nov-04, at 21:45, Cliff Albert wrote:
>> Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16
>> bits at some point anyway.
> I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
> longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter,
> there
> is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issue that
> created them in the first place.
Well, how many AS numbers would you like to give out? 30000 in 20
years? 100k a year? A million in a month? 32 bits will then give you
2863 millennia, 429 centuries or 357 years, respectively.
>> Oh, and just for fun: tell me if you see AS12945 in your routing
>> table.
>> I can assure you that this AS number was assigned and is still used in
>> full compliance with RIPE policies.
> * 195.193.163.0/24 195.69.144.125 12945 I
> As you can see there is evidence to substantiate your claim. That you
> have no route: object and are advertising UUNet space under another ASN
> to specific peers is something else.
This AS is only visible to around 20 peers. :-) Apparently you're one
of them although I have no idea which one. The other peculiarities are
to avoid taking up space in the global routing table, which would be
more work but provide no benefits.
