[82890] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: as numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Boyle)
Sun Jul 31 01:24:00 2005
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:23:33 -0400
To: Geoff Huston <cidr-report@potaroo.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Robert Boyle <robert@tellurian.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
At 01:12 AM 7/31/2005, you wrote:
This kind of response does have a certain market-based logic to it, I must
admit, but its highly risky. I don't think its all that wise for this to be
delayed indefinitely until the point at which its turning from an orderly
transition into a last second panic, and I don't think that many customers
will place this high on their vendor support priority list until they are
actually allocated a 4-byte AS number because the 2-byte pool has been
exhausted. .
>So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS
>support in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute
>panic in a couple of years hence, then it would appear that you should
>talk to them now and say clearly that you want 4-Byte AS support in your
>BGP software right now.
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but
all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and
believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy
who gets a 4-Byte AS will. Eventually one of our BGP speaking transit
customers will be assigned these AS numbers and other newer providers will
too, but unless someone plans to chop up their network or split into two
companies, I don't see that there will be much clamoring for this - yet.
When we can't provide connectivity to a potential customer because we can't
accept or wrap up their 4B AS, then there will be demand. Just some food
for thought...
-R
Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection
http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
