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

Re: 16-bit ASN kludge

  • From: Valdis.Kletnieks
  • Date: Mon Dec 06 13:34:42 2004 
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 10:14:12 PST, Owen DeLong said:
> The proposal wasn't for "parallel" ASN space.  The proposal was to have
> a range of ASNs for leaf-networks and a range for transit networks, allowing
> transit networks to make more rational (possibly automated) decisions about
> route aggregation.

That may be sane, but that's not how I read John's actual proposal:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 16:36:39 -0600, 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.

I don't see anything about ranges, but an entire parallel 16 bit space.
And John's definitely talking about them possibly having a 1312 on both
sides, because it matters which side you hear about it from.

Conversely, if it matters which side you hear about it from, it also matters
which side you announce it on.. which was my point.

Attachment: pgp00023.pgp
Description: PGP signature