[76326] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 16-bit ASN kludge
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 6 13:14:41 2004
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:14:12 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list@socket.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200412061754.iB6Hs1NU027498@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========13D0A6586007A98336D5==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
The proposal was that transit ASNs would begin with 12 leading 0 bits and
non-transit ASNs would not. As such, 1312 would not be a non-transit ASN.
The proposal wasn't for "parallel" ASN space. The proposal was to have
a range of ASNs for leaf-networks and a range for transit networks, =
allowing
transit networks to make more rational (possibly automated) decisions about
route aggregation.
Owen
--On Monday, December 6, 2004 12:54 PM -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:23:55 PST, Owen DeLong said:
>
>> I don't see non-transit ASN leakage as any greater issue than current
>> private ASN leakage.
>
> If somebody leaks a private ASN, we can tell that it's a private ASN by
> inspection.
>
> If somebody is using '1312' inside their parallel ASN space and
> accidentally leaks it, it's a bit harder to diagnose.
>
> And if somebody is leaking 1312, I'll be quite put out... ;)
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========13D0A6586007A98336D5==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBtKF0n5zKWQ/iqj0RApzNAJ9qrS5TwmCGKrQNAISy6236iqP+/wCggDyN
gIG5+rh/1lxlZUlixhvuJKs=
=wjAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========13D0A6586007A98336D5==========--
