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

Tue Nov 30 20:34:57 UTC 2004

--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 19:52 +0200 Pekka Savola 
<pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote:

> 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.
>
The v6 allocation policies and lack of PI space are under attack from people
like me (and a lot of people not much like me, btw) because they do not meet
the needs of a significant portion of the community.  While I have seen a
number of people recognize the need for >16 bit ASNs under the current
policy, I have not seen a lot of people saying that the ASN policy is too
strict and not meeting the needs of the community.

There is a world of difference between the situations with ASNs and the
situation with IP addresses...

	1.	EVERYONE needs IP addresses (or at least probably will).
	2.	MOST people these days know what an IP address is at some
		level.
	3.	MOST people would think of some sort of mechanical contraption
		if you asked them what an AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM was.  They would
		be puzzled by the idea of numbering one.

The suppression of v4 availability due to routing table issues and the
perceived shortage of addresses received _TEMPORARY_ support from the
broader community on faith and belief that IETF was working towards real
solutions to these problems in IPNG, and, this was a necessary stop-gap
measure to accomodate operations while that was developed.

Then, along came NAT and a lot more people started to realize that for
most things, they can live with non-routable provider independent space
and use NAT to accomplish most of what they need.  Since they couldn't
get routable PI space for the time being, this was acceptable.

Then, ISPs began to realize that non-portable address space was a fantastic
tool for preventing customer churn.  As such, for many years, ISPs dominated
ARIN (and I suspect other RIRs) policy and maintained somewhat of a
stranglehold on PI space being available only to the largest and most
technically adept customers (the ones that would find a way to move
regardless if they weren't getting good service).

Finally, end-users started participating more in ARIN and the ARIN policy
process, and, we managed just last year to finally get policy adopted that
allows for smaller organizations to get PI space in v4 again.  Still, there
has not been a single proposal aimed at reducing the requirements for ASN
assignment.  I just don't see moving the bit-boundary on ASNs as creating
the kind of land-rush and gloom-and-doom scenario you propose.  There is
community consensus around keeping the network operational.  I think people
recognize that 500,000 ASNs is a bad thing today.  I don't think 32bit ASNs
will mean we hit that for several decades.

> 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.
>
Yes, I think that with ASN space (regardless of the boundary), the situation
is very different.  The number of organizations not served by current IP
allocation and assignment policies is huge.  The number of organizations 
that
are suffering because of ASN policies, OTOH, is relatively small.

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

I think they are well aware of it.  I know that ARIN is.

Owen
-------------- 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/20041130/43af6867/attachment.sig>