[163526] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Single AS multiple Dirverse Providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Jun 10 15:17:38 2013
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <51B615D7.2090909@whack.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:15:30 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_7E3A1BB9-0365-4948-AE4B-D68CBF8A8FDB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
On Jun 10, 2013, at 14:07 , Bruce Pinsky <bep@whack.org> wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:36 , Bruce Pinsky <bep@whack.org> wrote:
> >> Or maintain "standard" behavior by running a GRE tunnel between the =
two
> >> discontinuous sites and run iBGP over the tunnel.
> >=20
> > Standard how? I don't remember any such standard, but always willing =
to be educated.
> >=20
> > Also, as someone who helps run 2500 non-connected sites, I can't =
begin to imagine
> > the mess of GRE that would require. (OK, not all are in the same =
ASN, but I like
> > hyperbole. :)
>=20
> "Standard" in the sense of continuing to reject duplicate ASN in the =
AS
> path and not using a BGP knob to allow unnatural behavior.
"Natural" is a funny word here.
The reason you think it is natural is that's the way it has always been =
done. It's not a law or nature or something ghod has wrought. It is =
essentially a tribal tradition. <cue Topol singing>
Tradition is useful, but not a reason in-and-of itself, especially in =
the face of reasons to break tradition. I think having 100s of 1000s of =
discontiguous locations is a pretty good reason.
> If the networks he wishes to advertise for those sites are considered =
in
> the same ASN, there should be continuity between those sites, either
> physical or virtual.
I disagree. There are times it is simply not realistic to expect =
continuity.
The alternative is to expect "networks" with 100s or 1000s of locations =
to burn 100s or 1000s of ASNs. Which I think is a bit silly. Hence my =
question about possibly changing the rules.
NB: I fully admit I am biased in this. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
--Apple-Mail=_7E3A1BB9-0365-4948-AE4B-D68CBF8A8FDB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtiXSAAoJEHZX8udmu5TXkPsH/1y/6dVat16JfCATkwlZQ5sG
yPL/I5yMnsdezckyTPCsKx7pJ71Gfmq9h1Q3PKOst1MS/fVL7oouycjv8L8R+uOJ
b2YrrYhto4QSNXH4DQB0TE4g/NNo3kWlNIBmDqL6LUBACyQo9/W30IJvtBJHk85F
tQ0VvhPfx3YiiMSWvT/KBykquVtccN8g19VvRAnNtQT2GKdZxq4PWaCEqSBg7Kmm
ZUsYSLzxswQ0PncQ9NUz7sC9WS/70KFd31kelfq61CBRuo1Ltov2i3vPNRRXtRZD
BSPrW2r60Ff2va/EqskwBzuThKPmeklFJCcUZuH9RTHRlWqU/wJploqmmUhVyfE=
=H3IR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_7E3A1BB9-0365-4948-AE4B-D68CBF8A8FDB--
