North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 16-bit ASN kludge

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Fri Dec 03 21:10:52 2004

I think all the meaningful parties have already pretty much agreed on
32bit ASNs in BGP4. I think that will be coded in the routers well before
any attribute-based thing for 32bit ASNs is. As such, I don't see much
point to kludging this instead of just going for it assuming a 32bit world.

Owen


--On Saturday, December 4, 2004 0:30 +0000 "Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> wrote:

OD> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:45:17 -0800
OD> From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>

OD> I think the original proposal was to still go with 32 bit ASNs, but,
adapt OD> a range of 32 bit ASNs for the assignment to "NON-TRANSIT" ASNs
leaving OD> the entire 16 bit range reserved for "TRANSIT" ASNs.

Correct.  BGP would still carry traditional 16-bit ASNs, which would be
used strictly by transit networks.  Leaf ASes would use the "new" 32-bit
ASNs, which would be carried as BGP attributes.

It's similar to a transit provider with a downstream connected to
multiple POPs:  $transit_provider assigns all downstreams a private AS,
which is stripped from outbound advertisements.


OD> I think there's merit to the idea, but, I think that it could use some
OD> refinement.  I agree there will be many more non-transit than transit
ASNs

No disagreement re needing refinement.  I lack the clout to push BGPv8
on the world. ;-)


OD> (non-transit is an ASN that does not provide transit, transit is an
OD> ASN that provides transit).
OD>
OD> I think it would make more sense to put the boundary somewhere around
12 OD> bits or so.  If we reserved the first meg 1024k ASNs for transit
providers OD> (excepting the Private ASN reservation already in place),
and, allowed the OD> remaining ASNs to be assigned to non-transit ASNs,
this functionality could OD> be implemented relatively easily with
maximum backward compatibility.

Part of the kludge intent was to create something that standard routers
would carry.  Hence 16-bit traditional ASNs, with extended information
as an attribute.  It certainly would be possible to reserve 2^20 "new"
ASNs, though, for when BGP5 (or whatever) had native 32-bit support.


Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
________________________________________________________________________
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.



Attachment: pgp00017.pgp
Description: PGP signature