On Jun 10, 2013, at 14:07 , Bruce Pinsky <b...@whack.org> wrote: > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:36 , Bruce Pinsky <b...@whack.org> wrote:
> >> Or maintain "standard" behavior by running a GRE tunnel between the two > >> discontinuous sites and run iBGP over the tunnel. > > > > Standard how? I don't remember any such standard, but always willing to be > > educated. > > > > Also, as someone who helps run 2500 non-connected sites, I can't begin to > > imagine > > the mess of GRE that would require. (OK, not all are in the same ASN, but I > > like > > hyperbole. :) > > "Standard" in the sense of continuing to reject duplicate ASN in the AS > path and not using a BGP knob to allow unnatural behavior. "Natural" is a funny word here. The reason you think it is natural is that's the way it has always been done. It's not a law or nature or something ghod has wrought. It is essentially a tribal tradition. <cue Topol singing> Tradition is useful, but not a reason in-and-of itself, especially in the face of reasons to break tradition. I think having 100s of 1000s of discontiguous locations is a pretty good reason. > If the networks he wishes to advertise for those sites are considered in > the same ASN, there should be continuity between those sites, either > physical or virtual. I disagree. There are times it is simply not realistic to expect continuity. The alternative is to expect "networks" with 100s or 1000s of locations to burn 100s or 1000s of ASNs. Which I think is a bit silly. Hence my question about possibly changing the rules. NB: I fully admit I am biased in this. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. -- TTFN, patrick
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
