[163528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Single AS multiple Dirverse Providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Jun 10 15:23:08 2013
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130610181405.GA11687@gweep.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:22:41 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 10, 2013, at 14:14 , Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> 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:
>>>> I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the =
third
>>>> 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?
Was not compressed. Don't want to take out loop detection in general. If =
you are running an island, it is up to you to ensure that island is =
specifically configured.
This makes it no different than lots of other "weird" things on the =
'Net. (I put weird in quotes because weird implies out of the ordinary, =
but there are probably more weird things than "normal" things these =
days.)
> 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.
All good points.
Is it enough to keep the standard? Or should the standard have a =
specific carve out, e.g. for stub networks only, not allowing islands to =
provide transit. Just a straw man.
Or we can keep it like it is today, non-standard and let people who know =
what they are doing violate it at their own peril.
The problem with the latter is some ISPs point to standards as if there =
is no other possible way to do things. Which makes it difficult to be =
someone who knowingly violates a standard.
Anyway, just wondering how others felt.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
