[76314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 16-bit ASN kludge
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Dec 5 21:37:25 2004
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:45:47 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
"Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <A5979EAE-46CD-11D9-9B05-000A95CD987A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========4CF471AE0F3B37A48E90==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
--On Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:55 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum=20
<iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
>
> On 4-dec-04, at 21:04, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
>
>> I suppose there could be in excess of 65431 transit networks. I think
>> that's why Owen suggested reserving, say, 2^20 ASNs for transit in
>> 32-bit space.
>
> How does this make sense? If you have one of the ASes in the range 2^16 -
> 2^20-1 you, your customers and your transits still need to be able to
> handle 32 bit AS numbers. Apart from the backward compatibility being
> slightly more important for transit networks there is no upside to having
> a separate transit network and leaf network AS space.
>
My thinking was that transit networks could aggregate leaf advertisements
and share only the aggregates instead of the more specifics. The hope
here was that by having separate leaf/transit ASNs, we could perform =
another
level of routing table size management/optimization.
I think optimizing for backward compatibility for transit initially, and,
eventually, for transit routing table size while still providing leaf
multihoming capabilities is desirable.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========4CF471AE0F3B37A48E90==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBs7nLn5zKWQ/iqj0RAhwgAJ4vecoUGMVDNosoKyUbfWe5rv8QeACeKfdi
rSDnEFxfuOFXzrGzUjkqDmU=
=IEXw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========4CF471AE0F3B37A48E90==========--
