North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 16-bit ASN kludge

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Fri Dec 03 18:24:50 2004 
I don't see non-transit ASN leakage as any greater issue than current
private ASN leakage.

However, I do see the ability to use non-transit ASNs to multihome end sites
with provider independent addresses and allow better aggregation as a good
thing.  In this case, leakage would only have the same consequences as doing
things the way we do them now.

I don't see a real downside.

Owen


--On Friday, December 3, 2004 18:08 -0500 [email protected] wrote:


On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:36:39 CST, John Dupuy said:

Along these lines, one could leave the transit AS networks alone if a
parallel 16 bit ASN space were created. Essentially, any non-transit
network would have it's non-public ASN retranslated NAT-style by
upstream  transit network border routers. Only the border routers would
have to be  changed. They would have to differentiate between public ASN
X and  non-public ASN X (same number) based on the which side of the
router the  ASN was learned from.

So given the lack of trouble with NAT sites leaking rfc1918 addresses, you
foresee no problems with sites accidentally leaking the non-public ASN's,
right?


--
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.

Attachment: pgp00016.pgp
Description: PGP signature