Regional AS model
m.hallgren at free.fr
Thu Mar 24 17:17:03 CDT 2011
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid at zaidali.com> wrote:
> >>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges for running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc or I have heard folks do one AS per DC. I particularly don't see any advantage in doing one AS per region or datacenter since most of the reasons I hear is to reduce the iBGP mesh. I generally prefer one AS and making use of confederation.
> >> If you have good backbone between the locations, then, it's mostly a matter of personal preference. If you have discreet autonomous sites that are not connected by internal circuits (not VPNs), then, AS per site is greatly preferable.
> > We disagree.
> > Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
> > Which is "preferable" is up to you, your situation, and your personal tastes.
> We're with Patrick on this one. We operate a single AS across seventy-some-odd locations in dozens of countries, with very little of what an eyeball operator would call "backbone" between them, and we've never seen any potential benefit from splitting them. I think the management headache alone would be sufficient to make it unattractive to us.
Right. I think that a single AS is most often quite fine. I think our
problem space is rather about how you organise the routing in your AS.
Flat, route-reflection, confederations? How much policing between
regions do you feel that you need? In some scenarios, I think
confederations may be a pretty sound replacement of the multiple-AS
approach. Policing iBGP sessions in a route-reflector topology? Limits?
More information about the NANOG