[139158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regional AS model
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Mar 28 17:52:36 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <2D72748A-D4FA-4D0F-AA6F-52CB99C6972F@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:51:41 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>> On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>> Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
>>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> In response, you have some nebulous "ugly" comment. I submit your =
argument is, at best, lacking sufficient definition to be considered =
useful.
>>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> -Dave
>=20
> I agree that allowas-in is not as bad as default, but, I still think =
that having one AS per routing policy makes a hell of a
> lot more sense and there's really not much downside to having an ASN =
for each independent site.
I'm glad you ignored Woody and others, who actually runs a multi-site, =
single-as topology.
How many multi-site (non)networks have you run with production traffic?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
