North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Private ASN suppression

  • From: Danny McPherson
  • Date: Tue May 16 17:21:43 2000

Actually, RFC 2270 is only suggested to be used when 
sites are homed to a single provider.  In this case,
there won't be origin AS inconsistencies.

I believe most implementors (some listed, some not) of
this "remove-private-as" capability only intended for 
it to be used in configurations where the source of the 
route(s) is homed only to a single upstream AS.


> well as rfc2260.
> to be more specific, we have to note that two different options
> are considered there. if you use the first one (read rfc),
> then you cannot use private asn until you're ok with
> generating inconsistencies (and it seems from the previous
> discussions of this topic that this becomes (illegal? ->
> no answer...) practice for some smaller isps).
> with the second option of 2260, you can use private asn
> since the more specific pa routes are always aggregated
> (and you cannot use confederations, btw).
> after all, as was noted, remove-private-as on cisco can be
> replaced by a simple route map, and the attribute manipulation
> functionality should definitely exist on versalars...
> --
> dima.