Re: Single AS multiple Dirverse Providers

[Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0500, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>
> > > I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the third
> > > is geographically diverse, and there is NO connection between the two
> > > separate networks.
> >
> > So, you have two islands? Technically, that would be separate 
> > ASNs as they are separatre routing policies, but the modern 
> > world has adapted. 
>
> Should we change the rules? I know with 64-bit ASNs mean it is
> tough to run out of ASNs, but not sure we really want each island
> to be its own AS going forward.
>
> Comments from the peanut gallery?
 
I missed your proposal for loop detection to replace the current 
behavior in the above text. Was it compressed?

I will admit that it is Not Hard for people who know what 
they're doing to operate well outside default and standard 
behavior. That's why I merely recommended that the questioner 
educate themselves as to the whys and wherefore before just 
turning knobs. I would submit that not knowing loop detection 
is a default and valuable feature might indicate the person 
should understand why and how it affects them. I don't have 
the hubris to believe that I understand his business needs, 
nor edge conditions/failure modes where a different solution 
might be needed.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
         RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NANOG