North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Private ASN suppression
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. > > > > > > > > > >
|