IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sun, 16 December 2012 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253A621F8536 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.815
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.815 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HPvbMhfIqYXj for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B67B21F8513 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so7742601ieb.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=6DEPeBhULcVvld1IPftlVFQapyV62W9flBGIJmmZ4tM=; b=AgKaSNXvjeMcu8UE8wVaBWwD1pGQnrVSnVdoV1yUmbDNkzyeA44PE0zwdqybViTGRO 9/lDZ+YzdgtODQ4da/wgm0fHSYbx3l9SjQxwJekMPDXIXMfLKXrIwY74cjIFu88/6IZB jDp0G424WXolhd7vGXCiEnQ53NPOHx1mUQhEYAgpEBHX30omnzpZhspW0CZ9UrvRifuV ioDgLs2PaMjP2GyH8VAULie5El+k0IvCoKopvW0DcHxDHy+votw6/fKgTayF8AwPUfE9 zTl2UiMgxdNa9W9H60a2LneVI2EyodUN+icaJRM2GeLASTzWsYs1hqYKA/dnCbZ23EjW nABw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.220.166 with SMTP id px6mr5532879igc.8.1355617576713; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.132.33 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:26:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.134.22.105]
In-Reply-To: <1355614542.6115.19.camel@galileo.millnert.se>
References: <CA+b+ERnSVvewSpftXs3FhW12-S+sgnB1SwD4L+xqFW+hhbQayw@mail.gmail.com> <7120600D-71BD-4E61-8F06-25B7C2BAE6A8@riw.us> <20121211185917.GA21813@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERnzo2BLWjE1J_dMfYuExbG9WYJroPE4ZAWg++KK2_jy1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm=Agr7b6JXcXOwiP4wBjnEFmnVNt5fAJrn18R0hGtSzg@mail.gmail.com> <50C78C29.3070406@foobar.org> <50C8B8D9.4090903@umn.edu> <50C9039E.1050104@foobar.org> <20121213144147.GB4524@puck.nether.net> <50CB52E0.7080602@foobar.org> <20121214174012.GA18502@puck.nether.net> <50CBB294.1000300@umn.edu> <B5907AE4-F639-4CC7-B522-B9AD92E61A51@kumari.net> <50CCFD49.1060307@foobar.org> <1355614542.6115.19.camel@galileo.millnert.se>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:26:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPWAtb+Lo6hRu6Hg9dQNf2VUJ9q_85H+bKiRZE1WEaRnLN4BVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
To: Martin Millnert <millnert@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnPDnAirbDUiHoALLSGdehTlR2L11KXjvBuaFhgEir8fo/3LTJThYCEv2Pe3NpGxg15Q/6/
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:26:18 -0000

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert@gmail.com> wrote:
> A more clear motivation of why 100000 private ASNs would be insufficient
> would be interesting to read.

I would also find that interesting, but I do not need to know that
information to be convinced there is wisdom in allocating a large
range.

I thought 2^128 for IPv6 was stupid.  It was an expensive choice,
given the challenges which still exist in dealing with 128 bit
arithmetic in many environments, FIB consumption, legibility of
addresses, and so on.  We do have 2^128, though, and uses are being
invented for the bits.  ARIN policy allows you to basically get huge
IPv6 allocations based on nibble-boundaries for your ISP.  Some of the
largest ISPs can justify IPv6 allocations bigger than /20 (!) today.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status