[195107] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Long AS Path
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mel Beckman)
Wed Jun 21 16:46:39 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>
To: "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:45:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20170621.144213.74665620.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Why not ask the operator why they are pretending this path? Perhaps they ha=
ve a good explanation that you haven't thought of. Blindly limiting otherwi=
se legal path lengths is not a defensible practice, in my opinion.
-mel beckman
On Jun 21, 2017, at 1:36 PM, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
>>> I see no valid reason for such long AS paths. Time to update filters
>>> here. I'm tempted to set the cutoff at 30 - can anybody see a good
>>> reason to permit longer AS paths?
>>=20
>> Well, as I mentioned in my Net Neutrality filing to the FCC, a TTL of 30
>> is OK for intra-planet routing, but when you start leaving the big blue
>> marble you will need to allow the packets to live longer.
>=20
> TTL !=3D AS path length
>=20
> I can certainly see the use for a TTL of 30. I cannot see the use for
> an AS path length greater than 30 (especially not when 2 ASes are each
> repeated 16 times).
>=20
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
>=20
>=20
