[139164] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regional AS model
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 28 18:53:37 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BB2D062F-BE32-43CF-9BAD-A042500095ED@ianai.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:47:35 -0700
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 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.
>=20
> I'm glad you ignored Woody and others, who actually runs a multi-site, =
single-as topology.
>=20
> How many multi-site (non)networks have you run with production =
traffic?
>=20
Over the years, about a dozen or so.
Owen
