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

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

These are the same arguments that are presented each time
something new comes along to replace something old. When IPv4 first
came along nobody thought all of the 4 billion plus address could ever
be used; but we were wrong. 16-bit ASNs have served their place and
will continue to serve for the time being. Those who fail to plan, plan
to fail.

  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. As you had mentioned though, in
the near term this definitely would not be scalable, but who knows what
is going to happen 10, 15, or more years from now.

  I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296;
current world population give or take a few million is hovering around
6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother would
like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more to
make that work.

Chris

Pekka Savola

2

  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.

As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or more years from now.

So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable.

  I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296;
current world population give or take a few million is hovering around
6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother would
like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more to
make that work.

Yeah, I know the calculations :). Everyone can already get an IPv4 address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there already.

Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if they wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be very difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there is so vast resource to be used.

3

  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.

As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would
not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or
more years from now.

So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable.

Let's not. The reality is that going to 32bit ASNs isn't because we want
to assign 4 billion ASNs tomorrow. It's because we realize that in a few
years, there will be a need for more than 64K ASNs and 32 bits is the next
easy-to-code boundary. Given that in general practice, somewhere around
0.6 of assigned ASNs are actually visible in the global routing table, I
don't think the sky will fall simply because 32 bit ASNs are available.
The same controls will still be in place at the RIRs unless some deliberate
action is made with consensus of the RIR constituency to change them.

  I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296;
current world population give or take a few million is hovering around
6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother would
like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more to
make that work.

Yeah, I know the calculations :). Everyone can already get an IPv4
address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there
already.

Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if they
wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be very
difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there is so
vast resource to be used.

It needs to be strict because, as you have pointed out, the assignment of an
ASN has potential consequences beyond simply ASN exhaustion. The current
ASN policies are not there primarily to keep from running out of ASNs. The
general attitude towards this from the RIRs has been "32 bit ASNs are coming
soon anyway, so, ASN exhaustion is not the issue".

Owen

4

  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 :slight_smile: have been suggesting creating all kinds of PI space, to use more of the bits because they are available. The pressure is building up.

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.

Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if they
wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be very
difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there is so
vast resource to be used.

It needs to be strict because, as you have pointed out, the assignment of an
ASN has potential consequences beyond simply ASN exhaustion. The current
ASN policies are not there primarily to keep from running out of ASNs. The
general attitude towards this from the RIRs has been "32 bit ASNs are coming
soon anyway, so, ASN exhaustion is not the issue".

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

5

  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 :slight_smile: 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