Of course, it required you to point default routes out your upstreams, as you will not see the prefixes from one discontiguous island, in another, thanks to BGP loop detection.
ouch. bad practice defaulting like that, however to static route your individual blocks wouldnt be a problem
Several large access ISPs have run in the fashion for extended periods.
whats the opposite of autonomous? dependent? so AS becomes DS? :) seriously tho, if an AS ceases to be autonomous then theres little point in having them and you may as well do global routing on prefixes with a hop count hmm can RIP handle 120000 routes?
As far as aggregation - they are a couple reasons to not aggregate, but the vast majority of it is sloth.
like to meet C&W peering policy etc? the only valid reasons imho are traffic engineering and customer multihoming
Finally, in regard to "vocal opinions on NANOG" - well, anyone who has read NANOG for a while knows that vocal isn't always correct.
altho it gives an indication of best practice and therefore policy and like the other thread on filtering RIR allocation boundaries, sure you can go and do your own thing but dont complain when providers start filtering your routes and ignoring your prefixes! Steve
- Daniel Golding
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
I've found there are many providers that have completely disconnected autonomous systems. For example Yipes (6517) uses L3 on the west coast and Williams on the east coast. 66.7.129.0/24 is advertised under their AS through WCG and 209.213.209.0/24 is advertised under their AS through L3.
And the number of connected autonomous systems with de-aggregated prefixes appears to be even more common than a disconnected AS.
It would seem that many (most?) network operators are just ignoring the more vocal opinions on NANOG.
-Ralph