[53403] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: disconnected autonomous systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Granados)
Wed Nov 13 16:11:29 2002
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:09:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Granados <scott@wworks.net>
To: alex@yuriev.com
Cc: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
Daniel Golding <dgold@FDFNet.Net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10211131551450.22759-100000@s1.yuriev.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Aren't some reasons for using disconnected as's regulatory based ie the
bells etc?
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
>
> > > inherently wrong with using a single AS in multiple locations, and
> > > advertising discrete blocks of address space in each one. The best reason
> > > to do this is for a network that you eventually plan to merge - it
> > > eliminates issues of having to make major BGP configuration changes.
> >
> > Nothing inherently wrong with it if you're paying for transit, but good
> > luck getting peering in multiple locations without presenting consistent
> > views.
>
> No problem at all. Use a tunnel.
>
> Going back to the original question:
>
> (A) Is there a reason have disconnected ASs? Sure. Does it make more sense
> than using multiple AS numbers? No.
>
> (B) Is there a reason to deaggregate? Absolutely. The biggest being rather
> bad internal allocations practiced by networks.
>
> Alex
>
> --
>
>
>
