Re: Regional AS model

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl () asgaard org>]

On 25Mar2011, at 09.17, Michael Hallgren wrote:

> Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
> > On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > > On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid () zaidali com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and datacenter design. I am particularly 
> > > > > interested in operational challenges for running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc or I have heard 
> > > > > folks do one AS per DC. I particularly don't see any advantage in doing one AS per region or datacenter since 
> > > > > most of the reasons I hear is to reduce the iBGP mesh. I generally prefer one AS  and making use of 
> > > > > confederation. 
> > > >
> > > > If you have good backbone between the locations, then, it's mostly a matter of personal preference. If you have 
> > > > discreet autonomous sites that are not connected by internal circuits (not VPNs), then, AS per site is greatly 
> > > > preferable.
> > >
> > > We disagree.
> > > Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
> > > Which is "preferable" is up to you, your situation, and your personal tastes. 
> >
> >
> > We're with Patrick on this one.  We operate a single AS across seventy-some-odd locations in dozens of countries, 
> > with very little of what an eyeball operator would call "backbone" between them, and we've never seen any potential 
> > benefit from splitting them.  I think the management headache alone would be sufficient to make it unattractive to 
> > us.

Experience with a major backbone in the early 2000's that spanned 50 core sites and 4 continents - single AS is not 
really a problem.  We chose IS-IS with wide metrics as the IGP, and one-layer of route-reflection for the bgp mesh 
control.  

The only reason I could possibly see doing multi-AS in a general case is if your route policies are different in 
different regions (i.e. in one region a peer AS is a 'peer' and in another region the same AS is a 'transit' or 
'upstream').  You CAN do it with a single AS, but it's more painful...


> >                                -Bill
>
> Right. I think that a single AS is most often quite fine. I think our
> problem space is rather about how you organise the routing in your AS.
> Flat, route-reflection, confederations? How much policing between 
> regions do you feel that you need? In some scenarios, I think 
> confederations may be a pretty sound replacement of the multiple-AS
> approach. Policing iBGP sessions in a route-reflector topology? Limits?
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> mh
>
> >

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part