[59622] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Unique AS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Mon Jul 14 03:44:16 2003
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:43:26 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Chris Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
Cc: "Adonaylo, Gabriel" <Gabriel.Adonaylo@Comsat.com.ar>,
"'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030714024435.GA70355@flix.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Chris Luke wrote:
>
> Adonaylo, Gabriel wrote (on Jul 14):
> > Could anyone describe pros and cons of having a unique AS for this
> > kind of networks rather than having one AS for each country. Regardless of
> > the cons, we are facing migration process anytime soon, so I would
> > appreciate very much to get more pros than cons to include in my papers
> > which are almost finished!
<snip>
> The downside of a confederation approach, and of others too in similar
> circumstances, is that if the confederation gets split (by router or line
> failure etc) then the two halves cannot speak to each other, regardless
> of how much Transit or peering you have. You won't import routes from
> a regular EBGP peer that have your own ASN in the path. Thus, if you do
> have a confed ASN per country, you need to ensure your inter-country
> connectivity is up to scratch to avoid this scenario.
Presumably you can mitigate with allow-own-as to ensure you can connect your
countries together over transits...
Steve
