Regional AS model

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Mar 28 17:47:35 CDT 2011


On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>>> On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly BGP hacks on your routers, or, you don't care about Site A being
>>>>> able to hear announcements from Site B.
>>>> You are highly confused.
>>>> 
>>>> Accepting default is not ugly, especially if you don't even have a backbone connecting your sites.  And even if we could argue over default's aesthetic qualities (which, honestly, I don't see how we can), there is no rational person who would consider it a hack.
>>>> 
>>>> You really should stop trying to correct the error you made in your first post.  Remember the old adage about when you find yourself in a hole.
>>>> 
>>>> Another thing to note is the people who actually run multiple discrete network nodes posting here all said it was fine to use a single AS.  One even said the additional overhead of managing multiple ASes would be more trouble than it is worth, and I have to agree with that statement.  Put another way, there is objective, empirical evidence that it works.
>>>> 
>>>> In response, you have some nebulous "ugly" comment.  I submit your argument is, at best, lacking sufficient definition to be considered useful.
>>>> 
>>> And in reality, is "allowas-in" *that* horrible of a hack?  If used properly, I'd say not.  In a network where you really are split up regionally with no backbone there's really little downside, especially versus relying on default only.
>>> 
>>> -Dave
>> 
>> I agree that allowas-in is not as bad as default, but, I still think that having one AS per routing policy makes a hell of a
>> lot more sense and there's really not much downside to having an ASN for each independent site.
> 
> I'm glad you ignored Woody and others, who actually runs a multi-site, single-as topology.
> 
> How many multi-site (non)networks have you run with production traffic?
> 
Over the years, about a dozen or so.

Owen





More information about the NANOG mailing list