[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2009

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jul 23 13:35:48 EDT 2009


In a message written on Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:08:00PM -0400, Jason Schiller wrote:
> So the question is does the community still feel we need to send a message
> to the vendors and the providers that they need to support 32 bit ASNs in
> a real way?

I believe that message was sent, and received.  While the vendors are
not quite where I would like them to be in terms of availability, I
don't think sending more messages at this point is going to be
productive.

> Does the community feel there is value in arbitrarily setting a date to
> aid in setting a reasonable expectation of when vendors and providers
> need to be able to support 32 bit ASNs in a real way?

I believe there is value in knowing the date, but it need not be
arbitrary.  For instance, 16 bit ASN's will run out in less than two
years it would appear, which is a fairly well known date.

> Or is vendor support and provider support sufficiently advanced that is is
> no longer a concern?

AFAIK, the vast majority of the vendors have working code at this point.
The issue is that it may not be in all of the various forms they release
code yet, but that is going to be a function of their release cycles and
no amount of policy will change that.

> Does the community feel that removal of the date and giving out low
> numbered 32 bit ASNs will slow adoption of 32 bit ASNs as the "problem of
> needing to support 32 bit ASNs" will be out of sight and out of mind, and
> then suddenly and surprisingly re-emerge on some unknown date when the
> lowest valued 32 bit ASN clicks over that 16 bit boundary?

I'm not sure I think it will surprisingly reemerge, as the run-out date
is fairly well predicted, but it will re-emerge.  From an ISP
perspective, it only takes one customer needing this feature for you to
have to go off and do the work to figure out what you need to do; so I
don't think a short reprieve makes us really go backwards in terms of
support.  If anything, it may provide for a smoother transition as
providers can roll out the code in normal cycles, rather than a router
at a time as customers demand it.

> Does the community think there is value in being able to request a higher
> valued (over the 16 bit boundary) 32 bit ASN when smaller valued ASNs are
> available to allow providers to test and prepare for supporting 32 bit
> ASNs?  

This is the only area where I have some concern.  I think folks should
be able to show up and say "I want a 32 bit ASN" while there are 16 bit
ones still in the free pool, be it for testing or because they want to
leave 16 bit ones for those who need them.

That said, all indications are that you could probably count the number
of folks who would request and use 32 bit ASN's on one hand during the
timeframe in question.  Because of that I have my doubts it is worth the
community, ac, board and staff time to pass a policy at this point.  We
do have many other issues on the table. :)

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090723/6f092cb9/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list