While attempting to focus on ISPs there is still [unbelievably] a vendor
support issue. You may consider this a procurement failure, but the
fact remains that some products [Cisco me3400e] have yet to implement
support.
-Michael
On 8/9/2011 9:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 09/08/2011 14:47, John Curran wrote:
At ARIN, we are still having parties returning 4-byte ASN's (seeking 2-byte
instead),
indicating that the 4-byte ones are not sufficiently accepted in peering to
be usable.
This is obviously a less than desirable situation, and it appears that it is
not trending
towards resolution at this time.
At INEX, we see 60% of IXP connections which can handle ASN32 natively.
However, INEX is a small IXP and I haven't seen similar figures from other
IXPs which could validate this 60/40 split.
Having said that, in the IXP world most new service providers connect into
route servers, so there is often no perceived requirement for direct
ASN32->ASN16 interconnection - the intersection of new service providers
and ASN32 holders is quite large. And if you really want a bilateral
peering relationship, there's no reason not to use AS23456.
Thoughts?
- interior BGP community management is great fun with an ASN32, oh yes.
- i don't have much sympathy for people who whine about not being able to
support ASN32 peerings. There is no good reason for this these days.
- from personal experience, I understand why ASN32 is less popular.
However, it's certainly usable.
Nick
