Re: Regional AS model

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm glad you ignored Woody and others, who actually runs a multi-site, single-as topology.
>
> How many multi-site (non)networks have you run with production traffic?
Over the years, about a dozen or so.

Owen