-----Original Message----- From: jim deleskie Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:17 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: legacy /8
I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some extension, we see ok to add extensions to BGP to do other things, this makes at least if not more sence.
-jim
We wouldn't really need to get rid of BGP, it would just be that there would be potentially one route per ASN with no (or very little) aggregation. Some form of label switching where you map ASNs to peers might just be a little more efficient as you would only see the number of labels that you have peers. If the vendors are prepared to grow their capabilities along with the number of ASNs assigned, then there is no problem. Currently that would not be a problem. There are only 56,218 allocated 16-bit ASNs and 5120 allocated 32-bit ASNs for a current total of only about 61,000-ish "routes". Any peering router in use today that takes full routes would be able to handle this in its sleep.