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
