[53407] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: disconnected autonomous systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kris Foster)
Wed Nov 13 16:37:21 2002
From: "Kris Foster" <Kris.Foster@telus.com>
To: "'Scott Granados'" <scott@wworks.net>, alex@yuriev.com
Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
"Daniel Golding" <dgold@FDFNet.Net>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:11:20 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Aren't some reasons for using disconnected as's regulatory
> based ie the
> bells etc?
>
As far as I've seen they do the right thing and use multiple ASNs.
Kris
>
> 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
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
>
>
