Re: [44net] Proposal for allocation of AS numbers

On Thu Dec 10 01:13:16 PST 2015 Sam VK4AA wrote: Sam - for (maybe) you and all others who are not sure what the hell we are talking about those 32bit AS-numbers this nice article may be some help to get you on the same page: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2233273/cisco-subnet/understanding-4-by… It's nice to read and gives some hints on how to fit old 16bit and new 32bit ASNs together. (Thanks to Thomas DL9SAU for finding this article in the net.) So whatever method should be used, it should assure to map "old" 16bit-ASNs to the new 32bit-ASNs in a way as easy as possible. Keep in mind that in Europe there is a "European HAMNET" driven by 16 countries. It was founded in early 2000s and is using 16bit-ASNs because the 32bit-range was not available at that time. There is a registry to avoid ASN-doubles and it is working very well. As I know it is by far the largest bgp-driven network within the 44-Net worldwide, as far as the number of countries, number of participants and area is concernd. For more info about that see links at bottom of this mail (all in english). Either the 42<mcc>xxxxx or the 42<dxcc>xxxxx proposals give the chance to map old 16bit-ASNs 1:1 into the new 32bit-ASNs because they leave the lower 16bit-part to the countries for individual use. Even an IP-subnet-coded ASN like e.g. for Austria 42143xxxxx would fit this. The first proposal from Rob PE1CHL does not. It is incompatible to everything that was used or proposed before. Glad to hear that Rob is willing to change this. I don't think that the discussion about either 42<mcc>xxxxx or 42<dxcc>xxxx is only cosmetical. We must keep in mind different sizes of different countries and there networks. MCC has 7 # for USA and 2 # for China. Each other country has 1. Within DXCC every country has 1 # ready to go. I agree with Marius YO2LOJ: At a first glance the mcc proposal seems to be prefereable because it allows more ASN-Range for big countries on the go. On DXCC-numbers something has to be added to make it recognize different sizes of countries. That causes unnecessary work and - to say it with Peja's words: "you will have to provide mapping table and make sure it is updated all the time." for dxcc. I would be very glad to have a worldwide usable sulution (proposal) for the whole 44-Net which is commonly accepted and published on a central site. This gives all new countries willing to join a bgp-routed network within 44-Net something at hand they can deal with from startup. Don't let us hesitate on this topic and let's plan it very well. 73s de Egbert DD9QP -- Infos about European Hamnet: https://www.tapr.org/pdf/DCC2014-TheEuropeanHAMNET-DG8NGN.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A6DDrJRcws