16-bit ASN kludge

Mon Dec 6 18:41:38 UTC 2004

Sorry... I was talking about Eds proposal... I hadn't noticed the shift
to an entirely different proposal by John.

I think Eds proposal (which I proposed some modification to) has merit.
I think Johns alternative is far less desirable and agree with your concerns
about it.

Owen

--On Monday, December 6, 2004 1:32 PM -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:14:12 PST, Owen DeLong said:
>> 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.
>
> That may be sane, but that's not how I read John's actual proposal:
>
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:36:39 -0600, John Dupuy said:
>> Along these lines, one could leave the transit AS networks alone if a
>> parallel 16 bit ASN space were created. Essentially, any non-transit
>> network would have it's non-public ASN retranslated NAT-style by
>> upstream  transit network border routers. Only the border routers would
>> have to be  changed. They would have to differentiate between public ASN
>> X and  non-public ASN X (same number) based on the which side of the
>> router the  ASN was learned from.
>
> I don't see anything about ranges, but an entire parallel 16 bit space.
> And John's definitely talking about them possibly having a 1312 on both
> sides, because it matters which side you hear about it from.
>
> Conversely, if it matters which side you hear about it from, it also
> matters which side you announce it on.. which was my point.

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041206/4e7e30cb/attachment.sig>