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: Sun Dec 05 21:38:22 2004



--On Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:55 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4-dec-04, at 21:04, Edward B. Dreger wrote:

I suppose there could be in excess of 65431 transit networks.  I think
that's why Owen suggested reserving, say, 2^20 ASNs for transit in
32-bit space.
How does this make sense? If you have one of the ASes in the range 2^16 -
2^20-1 you, your customers and your transits still need to be able to
handle 32 bit AS numbers. Apart from the backward compatibility being
slightly more important for transit networks there is no upside to having
a separate transit network and leaf network AS space.

My thinking was that transit networks could aggregate leaf advertisements
and share only the aggregates instead of the more specifics.  The hope
here was that by having separate leaf/transit ASNs, we could perform another
level of routing table size management/optimization.

I think optimizing for backward compatibility for transit initially, and,
eventually, for transit routing table size while still providing leaf
multihoming capabilities is desirable.

Owen

--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: pgp00020.pgp
Description: PGP signature