[138976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regional AS model
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Thu Mar 24 16:48:55 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <BEDEAA6F-A82C-49DF-AA57-05AB473B53A5@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:47:24 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:
>=20
>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for =
backbone and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in =
operational challenges for running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one =
EU etc or I have heard folks do one AS per DC. I particularly don't see =
any advantage in doing one AS per region or datacenter since most of the =
reasons I hear is to reduce the iBGP mesh. I generally prefer one AS =
and making use of confederation.=20
>>=20
>> Zaid
>=20
> If you have good backbone between the locations, then, it's mostly a =
matter of personal preference. If you have discreet autonomous sites =
that are not connected by internal circuits (not VPNs), then, AS per =
site is greatly preferable.
We disagree.
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
Which is "preferable" is up to you, your situation, and your personal =
tastes. (I guess one could argue that wasting AS numbers, or polluting =
the table with lots of AS numbers is bad or un-ashetically pleasing, but =
I think you should do whatever fits your situation anyway.)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
