[138979] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regional AS model
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Thu Mar 24 17:27:32 2011
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
In-Reply-To: <8F562261-1B99-46EC-B4D0-F9665C3DAFD9@ianai.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:26:35 -0700
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.=20
We're with Patrick on this one. We operate a single AS across =
seventy-some-odd locations in dozens of countries, with very little of =
what an eyeball operator would call "backbone" between them, and we've =
never seen any potential benefit from splitting them. I think the =
management headache alone would be sufficient to make it unattractive to =
us.
-Bill
