[163523] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Single AS multiple Dirverse Providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Mon Jun 10 14:14:27 2013
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:14:05 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <668B8361-F10C-45B2-B64C-D6A0702FF440@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> > =08On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0500, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>=20
> >> I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the thi=
rd
> >> is geographically diverse, and there is NO connection between the two
> >> separate networks.
> >=20
> > So, you have two islands? Technically, that would be separate=20
> > ASNs as they are separatre routing policies, but the modern=20
> > world has adapted.=20
>=20
> Should we change the rules? I know with 64-bit ASNs mean it is
> tough to run out of ASNs, but not sure we really want each island
> to be its own AS going forward.
>=20
> Comments from the peanut gallery?
=20
I missed your proposal for loop detection to replace the current=20
behavior in the above text. Was it compressed?
I will admit that it is Not Hard for people who know what=20
they're doing to operate well outside default and standard=20
behavior. That's why I merely recommended that the questioner=20
educate themselves as to the whys and wherefore before just=20
turning knobs. I would submit that not knowing loop detection=20
is a default and valuable feature might indicate the person=20
should understand why and how it affects them. I don't have=20
the hubris to believe that I understand his business needs,=20
nor edge conditions/failure modes where a different solution=20
might be needed.
Cheers,
Joe
--=20
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NANOG
