[139156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regional AS model
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Temkin)
Mon Mar 28 17:14:48 2011
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:13:53 -0400
From: Dave Temkin <davet1@gmail.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <3F4587C8-3B69-4AD4-931E-51FCC51B79E1@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
>>>
>> Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly BGP hacks on your routers, or, you don't care about Site A being
>> able to hear announcements from Site B.
> You are highly confused.
>
> Accepting default is not ugly, especially if you don't even have a backbone connecting your sites. And even if we could argue over default's aesthetic qualities (which, honestly, I don't see how we can), there is no rational person who would consider it a hack.
>
> You really should stop trying to correct the error you made in your first post. Remember the old adage about when you find yourself in a hole.
>
> Another thing to note is the people who actually run multiple discrete network nodes posting here all said it was fine to use a single AS. One even said the additional overhead of managing multiple ASes would be more trouble than it is worth, and I have to agree with that statement. Put another way, there is objective, empirical evidence that it works.
>
> In response, you have some nebulous "ugly" comment. I submit your argument is, at best, lacking sufficient definition to be considered useful.
>
And in reality, is "allowas-in" *that* horrible of a hack? If used properly, I'd say not. In a network
where you really are split up regionally with no backbone there's really little downside, especially versus
relying on default only.
-Dave
