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. Owen
