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 fi
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.
Well, let's sa
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 m
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,
>
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 Sit
On 27/03/2011 16:53, Nick Hilliard wrote:
accepting default has one important drawback for smaller networks: it
causes loose urpf not to work for transit connections, and this causes
remotely triggered blackhole discards not to work as expected. Depending on
your requirements, this may or may not
On 27/03/2011 07:53, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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 conside
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.
Accept
On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>>>
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone
>
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone
>>> and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in o
> Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
>
> Which is "preferable" is up to you, your situation, and your personal
> tastes. (I guess one could argue that wasting AS numbers, or
> polluting the table with lots of AS numbers is bad or un-ashetically
> pleasing, but I think you sh
Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 à 02:09 -0700, Zaid Ali a écrit :
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
>
> > Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
> >> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> >>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:17 PM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I have
On 25Mar2011, at 09.17, Michael Hallgren wrote:
> Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I have seen
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Graham Wooden wrote:
> with one site being in the middle. I only have one public AS, but I have
> selected doing the confederation approach (which some may consider to be
> overkill with only three edges).
There are really several issues to consider, one of which
While it's a very interesting read and it's always nice to know
what Danny is up to, the concept is a pretty extreme corner
case when you consider the original question. I took the original
question to be about global versus regional AS in a provider
backbone.
On the other hand if we'd had this
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for b
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:45 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>> Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
>> your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
>> a technical reason to do it today.
Quoting Zaid Ali :
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for
backbone and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in
operational challenges for running AS per region e.g. one AS for US,
one EU etc or I have heard folks do one AS per DC. I particularly
don
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
> Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
> your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
> a technical reason to do it today. This is a layer 8/9 issue.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/d
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>>
>>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone
>>> and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in op
Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
a technical reason to do it today. This is a layer 8/9 issue.
jy
On 25/03/2011, at 5:42 AM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I have seen age old discussions on si
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
>> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
>> datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges
>> for running AS per region e.g. one AS
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
> datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges for
> running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc or I have hear
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges for
running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc or I have heard folks do
one AS per DC. I particularly don't see any advantage in doing
25 matches
Mail list logo
