North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: Private ASN suppression

  • From: Dmitri Krioukov
  • Date: Tue May 16 18:16:57 2000

100% agree. i just wanted to note
that there is another use of
private asns, where confederations
cannot be used at all.
--
dima.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Danny McPherson
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 5:17 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Private ASN suppression 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> -danny
> 
> > ...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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>