At 01:12 AM 7/31/2005, you wrote: This kind of response does have a certain market-based logic to it, I must admit, but its highly risky. I don't think its all that wise for this to be delayed indefinitely until the point at which its turning from an orderly transition into a last second panic, and I don't think that many customers will place this high on their vendor support priority list until they are actually allocated a 4-byte AS number because the 2-byte pool has been exhausted. .
So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS support in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute panic in a couple of years hence, then it would appear that you should talk to them now and say clearly that you want 4-Byte AS support in your BGP software right now.
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will. Eventually one of our BGP speaking transit customers will be assigned these AS numbers and other newer providers will too, but unless someone plans to chop up their network or split into two companies, I don't see that there will be much clamoring for this - yet. When we can't provide connectivity to a potential customer because we can't accept or wrap up their 4B AS, then there will be demand. Just some food for thought... -R Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
On 31 Jul 2005, at 01:23, Robert Boyle wrote:
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will.
The first guy who gets a 4-byte AS number is going to be one of our customers. If we want to be able to talk BGP with him, we need 4-byte AS number support in our edge routers. ISPs who have an interest in continuing to win transit customers past 2008/2009 should be interested in getting 4-byte AS number support, regardless of how many 2-byte AS numbers they already have. ISPs who plan to stop getting new customers don't need to bother :-) Joe
At 10:51 AM 7/31/2005, Joe Abley wrote:
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will.
The first guy who gets a 4-byte AS number is going to be one of our customers. If we want to be able to talk BGP with him, we need 4-byte AS number support in our edge routers.
I know, understand, and agree. He is going to be one of our customers, but he isn't us and the new 4-byte AS allocations aren't real yet either. I'm just saying that of all the things that we (nanog collectively, not just Tellurian) need our router vendors to do, this is on the list, but it isn't #1 or maybe even in the top ten. However, I would also rather have it BEFORE we need it. Is 2005 too soon for people to _demand_ it? Maybe...
ISPs who have an interest in continuing to win transit customers past 2008/2009 should be interested in getting 4-byte AS number support, regardless of how many 2-byte AS numbers they already have. ISPs who plan to stop getting new customers don't need to bother :-)
Of course! I agree with you, but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't expect most ISPs to prioritize this feature with their vendors until about January 2008. That means we'll have buggy 4-byte AS code until about summer 2009. :P -R Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
At 10:51 AM 7/31/2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 31 Jul 2005, at 01:23, Robert Boyle wrote:
I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will.
The first guy who gets a 4-byte AS number is going to be one of our customers. If we want to be able to talk BGP with him, we need 4-byte AS number support in our edge routers.
ISPs who have an interest in continuing to win transit customers past 2008/2009 should be interested in getting 4-byte AS number support, regardless of how many 2-byte AS numbers they already have. ISPs who plan to stop getting new customers don't need to bother :-)
As new /8's of address space are going up, various folks on NANOG have asked for test addresses within the block to be made live so that testing can be done. Given the interest in whether 4 byte AS numbers will function, when will a test network be put up using a 4 byte AS, and announced so that everyone can test their readiness? A server hosted on such a network probably could produce a weekly report, similar to the CIDR report, that shows the differences between two byte AS connectivity and 4 byte, and gives a list of the networks that have issues with 4 byte AS space. At least that way there'd be some real data to argue about.
Given the interest in whether 4 byte AS numbers will function, when will a test network be put up using a 4 byte AS, and announced so that everyone can test their readiness?
A server hosted on such a network probably could produce a weekly report, similar to the CIDR report, that shows the differences between two byte AS connectivity and 4 byte, and gives a list of the networks that have issues with 4 byte AS space. At least that way there'd be some real data to argue about.
nice... so one or more of the RIRs should ask the IANA for a delegation in the 4byte space and let a few brave souls run such a trap. The IETF has a proces for running such experiments that could be applied here. should I write it up and get the ball rolling? --bill
> > Given the interest in whether 4 byte AS numbers will function, when > > will a test network be put up using a 4 byte AS, and announced so > > that everyone can test their readiness? > > > > A server hosted on such a network probably could produce a weekly > > report, similar to the CIDR report, that shows the differences > > between two byte AS connectivity and 4 byte, and gives a list of the > > networks that have issues with 4 byte AS space. At least that way > > there'd be some real data to argue about. I think PCH, RIS, and Route-Views can handle the collection side of it, and I'm sure we can coordinate on the back-end to make a single report. -Bill
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
nice... so one or more of the RIRs should ask the IANA for a delegation in the 4byte space and let a few brave souls run such a trap. The IETF has a proces for running such experiments that could be applied here.
should I write it up and get the ball rolling?
Could the root-servers be moved to the 4 byte space? Pete
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 08:08:37PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
nice... so one or more of the RIRs should ask the IANA for a delegation in the 4byte space and let a few brave souls run such a trap. The IETF has a proces for running such experiments that could be applied here.
should I write it up and get the ball rolling?
Could the root-servers be moved to the 4 byte space?
Pete
we did that (move a root) in the CIDR /8 experiment. we could do it for this too.... :) --bill
On 31.07 17:20, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
we did that (move a root) in the CIDR /8 experiment. we could do it for this too.... :)
one root name server: yes the root name servers: no, definitely not Daniel PS: Ony as soon as implementations are available of course ! ;-(
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:17:58AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 31.07 17:20, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
we did that (move a root) in the CIDR /8 experiment. we could do it for this too.... :)
one root name server: yes the root name servers: no, definitely not
Daniel
PS: Ony as soon as implementations are available of course ! ;-(
we didn't move all of them last time, doing so now would be foolish. one, yes... --bill
participants (7)
-
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Daniel Senie -
Joe Abley -
Petri Helenius -
Robert Boyle