12 Dec
2015
12 Dec
'15
5:55 a.m.
Subject:
Re: [44net] Proposal for allocation of AS numbers
From:
Egbert - DD9QP <dd9qp(a)db0res-svr.ampr.org>
Date:
12/11/2015 06:13 PM
To:
44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
EU HAMNET has started thinking about using private 32bit-ASN quite some time ago.
Diskussions in our regular meetings pulsed up since 32bit-ASN where available.
But what we always were missing up to now was an international proposal for all countries
using the 44-Net and, of course, a common agreement for using that. It makes no sense when
everyone is rolling out a different System without talking to
others. Chances of crashing are high and planing isn't even worth the time.
Regardless wether there is a registry, policy, human- or computerbased
IP-Net-to-ASN-Generator out there, we all have to respect one minimal policy to keep
everything running in the future:
Don't use concurrent private-ASN-proposals in parallel!
Everything else is left to the countries themselves.
For example:
Using the 42<mcc>xxxxxx in all countries is fine. But if some country starts using
eg 42<IP-OctetofCountryDeployment>xxxxx there is high risk to crash with:
Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Monaco, Andorra, Spain, Hungary, Bosnia, Croatia,
Serbia, Montenegro, Italy, Vatican, Romania, Switzerland, Czech Rep., Slovak Rep.,
Austria, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia,
Estonia, Russia, Ukraine
All of them have mcc-codes between 0 and 255.
That is correct, that is why I decided to drop that proposal, although I still think it
was better because:
- it did not rely on another number list that has questionable status w.r.t. availability
(my first attempts to download a complete list ended at some ITU site that requires a
subscriber login,
but later I found places where the full list is available in the open)
- it handles the issue that the USA has much more network space relative to the number of
E.212 entries
- it left a lot of space in the private ASN range unused for future ideas (4225600000 -
4294967294)
However, these issues are not that relevant in practice, and I am willing to go with the
E.212 based system
because it is already there.
It gives all countries at least 100000 AS numbers to work with without any risk of
duplicates, and some
countries have more than one mcc number. That should be plenty, especially when they are
not based on
another number like a network address, but generated at some central site.
Finally, when space ever runs out we can always assign "reserved" E.212 numbers
as an overflow.
100000 numbers is a lot, and allows for regional subdivision where appropriate.
Rob