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

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Mon Nov 13 23:06:09 EST 2006

> 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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list