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