[75936] in North American Network Operators' Group
16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Mon Nov 29 01:46:20 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:45:17 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Cliff Albert <cliff@oisec.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9372EF5C-418E-11D9-B165-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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.
Well, as I have said... having to go to 32 bit AS numbers shows that
we've failed at ASN policy-making and failed at creating a scalable
multihoming solution.
We don't _want_ to have to give out thousands of AS numbers per month
or even a year. We'd (well, I at least :) would rather that that the
endsites had other means to do multihoming which wouldn't require such
global resources.
ASN exhaustion is IMHO just a symptom of the real problem. Enlarging
the ASN space does not cure the disease, just makes it worse.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
