nanog mailing list archives
Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas () netcore fi>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:09:25 +0200 (EET)
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
Of course, every ASN would not be active. But if we'd have 32 bit ASNs, there would be "no need" (or so folks would argue) to be strict in the policies -- everyone and their uncle could have one. Folks could even get ones for their homes, theis SOHO deployments, or their 3-person, on-the-side consulting companies. And logically, each of these should have their own PI prefixes and a slot in the global routing table.People might argue it, but, I am not convinced they would succeed in that argument. If you want an ASN for something other than connecting to the internet for multihoming or other unique routing policy, then, make one up. Doesn't matter whether it's 16 or 32 bits. Also, there are a whole slew of private ASNs reserved for just such a purpose if you want to retain compatibility with existing ASN numbering.
Multihoming can be such a reason. Get DSL and cable to your home, request an AS number, request PI space, run BGP to multihome, etc.
OTOH, I have a SOHO with a legitimate ASN and protable IPv4 space. Who are you to tell me that it isn't legitimate for me to use it in this manner? Why do you get to decide that my SOHO is less worthy of PI space and the ability to reliably multihome just because my organization is small?
Because I have a similar organization myself, and I'm unselfish enough to realize that the organization is not sufficiently relevant in the global scale to be using such a mechanism.
So we return to the need to separate the end-point identifier from the routing identifier and come up with a routing scheme that allows routing assignments to be dynamic and flexible independent of the layer 3/4 endpoint identifier.Scalable? NO. Not just the number of routes, but also the churn those routes would make.. Oh god.
Yes. You seem to be arguing that because we don't have such identifier split _today_, we must open the doors to give _everyone_ PI and ASN and to pollute the global routing table.
I say we must close the doors even more, so that those who would need multihoming solution would pick the one based on identifier split, instead of getting the one which pollutes the global resource.
If we make getting PI/ASN too "cheap" (using various metrics for "cheap"), nobody wants to get an identifier split solution.
Obviuosly, you don't subscribe to the premise that regardless of reclamation, we will run out of 16 bit ASNs soon enough. That's fine, you may be right. However, from where I'm sitting, I think we will. I also think that the $500 up front cost and $100 annual renewal associated with an ASN are decent incentive for people not to get them unless they have a legitimate use for them. Private ASNs are too easy and cost nothing.
if the prices were one or two orders of magnitude higher, that might be true. That's way too cheap as it is. 10000$ upfront, 5000$/yr for renewal might scare away who _really_ don't need them. Have the RIRs donate the markup to ISOC or whoever and we're done.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Current thread:
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI], (continued)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Daniel Roesen (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Cliff Albert (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Jeroen Massar (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Jeroen Massar (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Jeroen Massar (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Pekka Savola (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Pekka Savola (Nov 29)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Message not available
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) Elmar K. Bins (Nov 30)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Michael . Dillon (Nov 30)
- Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Andre Oppermann (Nov 30)
- Sensible geographical addressing [Was: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs yadda, yadda] Michael . Dillon (Nov 30)
- Re: Sensible geographical addressing David Barak (Nov 30)
- Re: Sensible geographical addressing Peter Corlett (Nov 30)
- Re: Sensible geographical addressing David Barak (Nov 30)
- RE: Sensible geographical addressing Scott Morris (Nov 30)