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

Mon Nov 29 06:45:17 UTC 2004

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