New subject: Proposal for allocation of AS numbers

9 Dec 2015

Unfortunately my mail connection broke down for a few hours shortly after I posted
my proposal, so I missed most of the replies in my mail.   I am now replying based on
the archive, but this means it is difficult to quote your messages.

Robbie: that is a good point.  In my design I anticipated that one would not want to
route a smaller network than a /24, but in fact that could happen in the AMPRnet.
The reason I put the 44 in the AS number is to reduce the probability that an AS would
collide with another private AS allocated using a different system. However, it of course
uses precious space.  See below.

Marius: that is interesting.  This is exactly the kind of response I hoped for, as I
prefer
to use a method that is already established rather than inventing my own.
I found it appealing that the subnet address can be seen and recognized, these E.212
codes are obscure to me (but probably not to the person who invented this method).
This method leaves 5 digits within the country range, which allows for smaller subnets
as Robbie proposed.   I see one problem: because there is no 1:1 mapping between
E.212 code and AMPRnet /16 subnet, it will not always be possible to directly number
the AS from the subnet.   For typical European countries it will work well, but for the
USA there is a "problem" because there are many more /16 subnets allocated to
them
than there are E.212 codes.   Of course there are still more than enough AS numbers,
but it means they need to use some registry instead of a direct derivation of the number.

Pedja: as mentioned early in the message, these AS are not for use on the public
internet but only on our private radio network.  Gateways between radio and internet
are supposed not to be running BGP across them, or to filter the private AS and send
out the routing under their public AS.  That is already happening.

It looks like I will modify the system to look like this for our local use (and others
are
welcome to follow it:  42eeexxxyy where eee is the E.212 code, xxx is the third octet
of the IP address, and yy is a local sequence number 00-99 in cases where multiple
AS exist in that subnet.   So for 44.137.40.0/22 it will be 4220404000
(204 is the E.212 code for the Netherlands which has 44.137.0.0/16)
When I would want an AS for my personal subnet 44.137.41.96/28 it could be
4220404096 or some other arbitrary 42204040xx number.
(for now, we only route to the regional subnets level)

In my opinion, it is less easy to read than the first proposal, but of course it has the
advantage of more AS space within the local area, and the fact that it is already
established in some places.  That is an important advantage.

Rob

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