Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00 concluded, extended to consider ASN range

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hello David,

> So, if someone can provide a reasonable justification for 100M private use
> ASNs, or even 10M for that matter, I'm all ears

I think we are all observing exponential rate of office backends being
outsourced. Also notice that grow of public AS numbers is not that
steep. Through last 12 years we allocated 50K !
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns/

So IMHO it is not that unrealistic that some global SP (maybe Google,
Microsoft, Apple2 etc... :) could offer free Internet access
everywhere they could reach or where law mandates free "last mile".
Would we want to limit number of their global customers ? Would we
really need to invent new hacks to work around private AS number
starvation ? Of course it is dead clear that Internet access does not
mandate use of BGP even for multihomed sites (example: LISP). But this
is IDR so I guess talking about BGP here is ok.

My seemingly wild suggestions to offer half of the space as private or
think about make AS hierarchical were aiming precisely in such new
EBGP (or EBGP-lite) peerings for large numbers of IPv4/IPv6/VPNs
customers.

If someone would to use this new RFC for such applications let me
reverse the question .. do we have sufficient reasons to limit the
space to 1M customers ? Are we afraid that even if we reserve 31 bits
the public AS will experience shortage anytime soon considering
current grow rate of public as number assignments ?

Best wishes,
R.