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

The idea behind possibly making the policy stricter would be to
keep all of those "I want one too" people from getting an ASN number who
do not have a clear need and therefore conserve resources. Only because
you have the ability to give out ASNs does not me you should. Human
nature dictates for most people that if it is available they want one
also regardless of if the need exists.

  I have no problems with the phased move to 32-bit ASNs; it is a
logical step towards the future. I don't see what the big deal is;
although I do not write the code for the network equipment it seems that
the transition should be fairly transparent since the first 65536 ASN
numbers fit snuggly into the a 32-bit schema (there may be issues with
the private ASNs, but those also should fairly easy to transition) so
there shouldn't be much of a problem for existing users and none for new
users with the proper code/equipment. Future transitions to a 64-bit or
128-bit ASN if the need should arise, again I do not see a major issue;
but this is just my opinion, YMMV.


Actually, no need for trouble with the existing private ASNs. Afterall,
RFC 1918 is not exactly taken from any particular end of the IPv4 space.
The same situation can exist with private ASNs... They simply become
a hole in the list.

I don't think we need stricter ASN policies. I think the current policies
are quite adequate. If you think that the current policies are not sufficiently
strict, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you think they are

In any case, there isn't a land-rush for ASNs under current policy as far as
I can tell, and, I don't think increasing the available bits will change that.