[75976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 29 11:39:39 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:35:00 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, Cliff Albert <cliff@oisec.net>
Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <1101727670.16577.86.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========8642F250451976DA5A62==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
> Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
> table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course
> there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.
>
Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and active. You and I both know this
doesn't begin to approach reality. Slightly more than half of current
ASNs are actually in the routing table. The ASN issuance rate is not =
likely
to go up simply because we go to 32 bit ASNs. Probably we are really=20
talking
about a need for 20 bit ASNs or so, generally, but, 32 bits is a much more
convenient boundary for lots of code implementations and lots of hardware,
so, 32 bits is the chosen number for the sake of simplicity.
> 32bits ASN would thus just mean the end of BGP...
>
ULA will do much more damage than 32 bit ASNs.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========8642F250451976DA5A62==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBq0+0n5zKWQ/iqj0RAmmTAJ9f7l8nzSgCLHW8rGkdW5AT+OokbACgl2u+
gSabgBbP7kZ/NoGsqeyLSOk=
=r7Gf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========8642F250451976DA5A62==========--
