Re: Regional AS model

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:

> On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > > Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
> > > Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly BGP hacks on your routers, or, you don't care about Site A being
> > > able to hear announcements from Site B.
> > You are highly confused.
> >
> > Accepting default is not ugly, especially if you don't even have a backbone connecting your sites.  And even if we 
> > could argue over default's aesthetic qualities (which, honestly, I don't see how we can), there is no rational 
> > person who would consider it a hack.
> >
> > You really should stop trying to correct the error you made in your first post.  Remember the old adage about when 
> > you find yourself in a hole.
> >
> > Another thing to note is the people who actually run multiple discrete network nodes posting here all said it was 
> > fine to use a single AS.  One even said the additional overhead of managing multiple ASes would be more trouble than 
> > it is worth, and I have to agree with that statement.  Put another way, there is objective, empirical evidence that 
> > it works.
> >
> > In response, you have some nebulous "ugly" comment.  I submit your argument is, at best, lacking sufficient 
> > definition to be considered useful.
> And in reality, is "allowas-in" *that* horrible of a hack?  If used properly, I'd say not.  In a network where you 
> really are split up regionally with no backbone there's really little downside, especially versus relying on default 
> only.
>
> -Dave

I agree that allowas-in is not as bad as default, but, I still think that having one AS per routing policy makes a hell 
of a
lot more sense and there's really not much downside to having an ASN for each independent site.

Owen