RE: legacy /8

["George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jim deleskie 
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
> I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or
> not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do
> something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some
> extension, we see ok to add extensions to BGP to do other things, this
> makes at least if not more sence.
>
>
> -jim

We wouldn't really need to get rid of BGP, it would just be that there
would be potentially one route per ASN with no (or very little)
aggregation.  Some form of label switching where you map ASNs to peers
might just be a little more efficient as you would only see the number
of labels that you have peers.  

If the vendors are prepared to grow their capabilities along with the
number of ASNs assigned, then there is no problem.  Currently that would
not be a problem.  There are only 56,218 allocated 16-bit ASNs and 5120
allocated 32-bit ASNs for a current total of only about 61,000-ish
"routes".  Any peering router in use today that takes full routes would
be able to handle this in its sleep.