[168824] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route Server Filters at IXPs and 4-byte ASNs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Wed Feb 5 09:03:18 2014
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140205135203.GA594@pfrc>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 09:02:52 -0500
To: Jeff Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 5, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> wrote:
>> This draft does not cater for the use case of describing a 32-bit ASN =
peering
>> with a 32-bit route server, which would require a 4-byte Global =
Administrator
>> as well as a 4-byte Local Administrator sub-field.
>=20
> I think that's the first clear articulation I've read about why some =
people
> want wide comms vs. a simple replacement for existing regular =
communities as
> extended communities. Thanks.
I suspect the operator confusion is that=92s how they=92ve been using =
16-bit ASNs
all along, so how did the IETF end up with something different.
http://www.onesc.net/communities/ is a fairly comprehensive list of how =
they are used today.
- jared=
