Re: [lir-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Discussion about RIPE-261

[Måns Nilsson <]

--On Monday, May 26, 2003 15:44:27 +0300 Pekka Savola pekkas@localhost
wrote:

> On Mon, 26 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> > Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending
>> > it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a
>> > whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely. 
>> 
>> And it doesn't *solve* the policy issue - it will just move it to "who is
>> entitled to get a 16-bit AS number".
>> 
>> So I'd be very careful about this "solution".

The only thing that speaks for it, and that is a heavy reason, imho, is
that it would get a sizable chunk of native v6 address space deployed, and
people
could actually use v6, instead of lying to their RIR as they have to do
now. Most of the organisations also would manage nicely on only one
assignment (ie. one route per AS) unless they were insanely large. It would
be a nice "fresh start" of the routing table, but with only known
components. It might be that this is enough to make the real issues
surface, those we only find by trying.. 

> Totally agree -- in the sense, that IMHO, the registries need to start
> putting better policies in place to prevent AS number starvation.
>
> On the other hand, if we have good policies for ASN's, we could get easy 
> address allocation too with little overheard and additional paperwork..

Yup. 

> If we need to go for 32bit ASN's, I consider it a very bad policy 
> failure.. :-(

Agree. But people seem to vividly state that they are inevitable as soon as
I open my mouth about handing out /32 slices to all AS numbers. With 15500
or so ASen visible now, I'd be hard pressed to call them a scarce resource
in the short term...

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

Attachment: pgp00007.pgp
Description: PGP signature