On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo <nanog-p...@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