Re: Single AS multiple Dirverse Providers

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Jun 10, 2013, at 14:14 , Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net> wrote:
> 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?

Was not compressed. Don't want to take out loop detection in general. If you are running an island, it is up to you to 
ensure that island is specifically configured.

This makes it no different than lots of other "weird" things on the 'Net.  (I put weird in quotes because weird implies 
out of the ordinary, but there are probably more weird things than "normal" things these days.)


> 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.

All good points.

Is it enough to keep the standard? Or should the standard have a specific carve out, e.g. for stub networks only, not 
allowing islands to provide transit. Just a straw man.

Or we can keep it like it is today, non-standard and let people who know what they are doing violate it at their own 
peril.

The problem with the latter is some ISPs point to standards as if there is no other possible way to do things. Which 
makes it difficult to be someone who knowingly violates a standard.

Anyway, just wondering how others felt.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick