16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]

Mon Nov 29 16:35:00 UTC 2004

> 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 
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


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041129/8f0897eb/attachment.sig>