The reason I mentioned this ... non-RFC compliant idea in the first place, was the number of comments I get from customers who state that the cost and ease of obtaining the AS number is not as Joe says "trivial". It costs a fair bit of money and takes a fair bit of time. I also wanted to say that even though NZ isn't going to fix the global AS number crisis, NZ is not excused from thinking about opportunities to help, if some minor bending of 1930 allows us to do that, then we can at least consider it. The hippocritical part of my proposal is actually the address space requirements, in which I see no easy option other than the allocation of /24's as suggested by Joe. These are easier to come by, and justify as it is often done through the ISP, removing that complexity from the end-user. Thanks for everyone's input, the question I am left with is ... if customer X designing their network with our Routers asks me how to multihome to 2 ISPs, do I say go and talk to APNIC first or forget it, or do I say, the ISPs have jointly agreed on a method of using Private AS numbers, go and talk to them about how it's done ? If we just want to make it happen I would be happy to offer a suitable forum to thrash it out (the three critical components being Beer/Pizza/Chairs). If not I rest my case ... thanks again Arron *********************************************************************** Arron Scott (CCIE #4099) Phone: +64-9-3551951 Systems Engineer Mobile: +64-27-4883163 Cisco New Zealand mailto:ascott(a)cisco.com http://www.cisco.com *********************************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:owner-nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz]On Behalf Of Joe Abley Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:48 a.m. To: Simon Blake Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: BGP Private ASes On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:02:10AM +1200, Simon Blake wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 05:10:39PM -0400, Joe Abley said:
Just out of interest, what's the benefit in running yet another RPSL database?
WIX has 50+ private ASN peers, AFAIK you can't put info about private ASN into the public RPSL services, so if you want the value RPSL provides for private ASN (and I ohh so do), you run your own database.
... or you use globally-unique ASNs. Using private ASNs for non-private applications is surely broken, especially when it's so trivial to obtain a globally-unique one. You might argue that it's inefficient use of a finite resource for enterprises (in the AS1918 sense) that are not transit providers to be allocated globally-unique ASNs, and I might agree with you. That's not a problem that's going to be solved in New Zealand, though; that's a problem that will be managed by IANA and the RIRs with allocation policies until someone comes up with a multi-homing and routing system that scales better than the one we have.
efficient local mesh at WIX and APE. Perhaps I should consider moving to a provider who...."
... is willing to surrender control of her routing policy to a best-effort coordination service with no responsibility for the quality of the routing data sent to or from her network?
Oh for crying out loud.
I'm not talking about ingress filtering done by the WIX route servers. By "responsibility for the quality", I mean: + having a route propagation path which is different to the packet forwarding path, which is a general problem of route servers on non-trivial layer-2 exchange fabrics; + having no contract/support relationship/whatever between operators connected to the route server, which is a general problem of multi-lateral peering. As to the "best-effort" bit, I thought you were; sorry if that's not the case.
I've pointed this out several times on NZNOG, and yet you continue to assert that it's not the case.
Nope. I don't remember making any comments ever about what ingress policy you were using for the route servers. I do remember making comments about it being generally hard for *other* people to come up with a sensible ingress policy for their session to the route server, though, which is quite different. Lots of people find your route servers useful, and that's great. They *are* useful. I was objecting to the idea that operators who don't use the route servers must be bad or stupid, or be otherwise unworthy of attracting customers, because I don't think that's reasonable; there are arguments for not using them, just as there are arguments *for* using them. Joe - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog