[28800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private ASN suppression
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Tue May 16 17:19:57 2000
Message-Id: <200005162116.PAA32624@tcb.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:16:37 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Actually, RFC 2270 is only suggested to be used when
sites are homed to a single provider. In this case,
there won't be origin AS inconsistencies.
I believe most implementors (some listed, some not) of
this "remove-private-as" capability only intended for
it to be used in configurations where the source of the
route(s) is homed only to a single upstream AS.
-danny
> ...as well as rfc2260.
>
> to be more specific, we have to note that two different options
> are considered there. if you use the first one (read rfc),
> then you cannot use private asn until you're ok with
> generating inconsistencies (and it seems from the previous
> discussions of this topic that this becomes (illegal? ->
> no answer...) practice for some smaller isps).
>
> with the second option of 2260, you can use private asn
> since the more specific pa routes are always aggregated
> (and you cannot use confederations, btw).
>
> after all, as was noted, remove-private-as on cisco can be
> replaced by a simple route map, and the attribute manipulation
> functionality should definitely exist on versalars...
> --
> dima.
>
>
>
>
