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

Tue Nov 30 05:44:03 UTC 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
> 	It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become
> more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely
> scenario is that they will stay the same or get far stricter as with
> assignments of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

I find this hard to believe.  When there is 64K times as much the 
resource, there is no way the policies would get stricter, because it 
can easily and logically be argued that they don't need to be 
stricter.

> As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would 
> not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or 
> more years from now.

So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable.

> 	I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296;
> current world population give or take a few million is hovering around
> 6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov.  If everyone and the mother would
> like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more to
> make that work.

Yeah, I know the calculations :).  Everyone can already get an IPv4 
address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there 
already.

Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if 
they wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be 
very difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there 
is so vast resource to be used.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings