North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: 16-bit ASN kludge
On 4-dec-04, at 9:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think the general idea of dividing ASNs into LEAF and TRANSIT categoriesSo now people have to renumber their AS when they start selling transit? Not such a great idea...
Now watch out, since you completely unnecessirily quoted Eddy's message in full, I'm going to reply to that here rather than use a separate message for this.
OD> I think all the meaningful parties have already pretty much agreed on
This is not what the 32 bit AS draft proposes. (From memory, so I might get some of the small details wrong.) The idea is that the new 32 bit AS path is a new transitive attribute, which should be carried by existing BGP implementations. However, the 16 bit AS path is still there as well, with all the 16 bit incompatible ASes replaced by a "special" AS.Then belay my 16-bit ramblings. I'm probably a bit naive in thinking a
So all of this should work with existing implementations except that they don't see the full picture so AS path filtering on 32 bit ASes won't work. Basic operation shouldn't be a problem, though.
Note that I suggested starting to give out 32 bit AS numbers to new 32 bit compatible leaf sites while giving out 16 bit AS numbers to transit ASes as a way to ease in to all of this with the least amount of operational trouble. But at some point we'll run out of 16 bit AS numbers and 32 bit leaf networks will become transit networks, so people should upgrade at some point or live with the reduced filtering capabilities. And new ASes can't get around 32 bit support if their AS number isn't 16 bit safe, of course.
I still have to wonder if some leaf optimizations are possible. Perhaps
What would you like to optimize for?