nanog mailing list archives
Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:35:00 -0800
Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.
Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and active. You and I both know this doesn't begin to approach reality. Slightly more than half of current ASNs are actually in the routing table. The ASN issuance rate is not likelyto go up simply because we go to 32 bit ASNs. Probably we are really talking
about a need for 20 bit ASNs or so, generally, but, 32 bits is a much more convenient boundary for lots of code implementations and lots of hardware, so, 32 bits is the chosen number for the sake of simplicity.
32bits ASN would thus just mean the end of BGP...
ULA will do much more damage than 32 bit ASNs. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI, (continued)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Cliff Albert (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Cliff Albert (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Cliff Albert (Nov 28)
- 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Pekka Savola (Nov 28)
- 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)