BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Sun Nov 28 22:40:59 UTC 2004


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.




More information about the NANOG mailing list