[ppml] 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes- InputRequested

[Azinger, Marla]

Bloat may be a bad word to use.  How about 'waste'?  That is more to the point.  ASN's that show up in routing for only one connection can be argued as 'waste'.  ASN's that are requested but not used just to they could get IPV6 space would be a 'waste'.  For the sake of not arguing over the use of a word, 'waste' would be more appropriate and bloat should probably be dropped.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Py [mailto:michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:06 PM
To: Azinger, Marla; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes-
InputRequested


> Azinger, Marla wrote:
> Rationale for no asn:
> We should not require an ASN if they really don't need one?
> As long as they are statically routed to an upstream and don't
> want to run bgp/announce directly to the Internet, they don't
> need an ASN, therefore we shouldn't create policy that would
> contribute to ASN bloat. 

There is no such thing as an ASN bloat. Note that I'm not saying we
should go to Change #1, but the argument about ASN bloat does not hold
water with 32-bit AS Numbers: Even if each AS announces only 1 prefix,
we have a problem with routing table bloat a long time before we get to
4 billion ASNs. When we get to 1 billion ASNs and 1+ billion entries in
the GRT :-D then we can think about ASN bloat and how to stop it before
the 4 billion limit hits us.

Michel.