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

Tue Nov 30 17:52:25 UTC 2004

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
> --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:44 AM +0200 Pekka Savola 
> <pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>
> Reality denies your statement.  Currently, one could at least argue, that
> IPv6 policies are significantly stricter than IPv4 policies.  The ratio
> between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses is much much more than 64K times
> as much.  As such, your argument falls very flat very early just based on
> current experience.

And they have been under constant attack since the beginning.  Lots of 
folks (like you :) have been suggesting creating all kinds of PI 
space, to use more of the bits because they are available.  The 
pressure is building up.

Do you think the situation would be any different with 32-bit space? 
We could certainly _try_ to be strict (provided that there's 
sufficient consensus in the community that this is the way to go), but 
similar to the v6 allocation policies, sooner or later it would likely 
budge in some direction.

>> 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.
>>
>
> It needs to be strict because, as you have pointed out, the assignment of an
> ASN has potential consequences beyond simply ASN exhaustion.  The current
> ASN policies are not there primarily to keep from running out of ASNs.  The
> general attitude towards this from the RIRs has been "32 bit ASNs are coming
> soon anyway, so, ASN exhaustion is not the issue".

Agree.  I think the RIRs, despite the resolution how to go forward, 
take heed from this.

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