--On Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:55 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
On 4-dec-04, at 21:04, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
I suppose there could be in excess of 65431 transit networks. I think that's why Owen suggested reserving, say, 2^20 ASNs for transit in 32-bit space.
How does this make sense? If you have one of the ASes in the range 2^16 - 2^20-1 you, your customers and your transits still need to be able to handle 32 bit AS numbers. Apart from the backward compatibility being slightly more important for transit networks there is no upside to having a separate transit network and leaf network AS space.
My thinking was that transit networks could aggregate leaf advertisements and share only the aggregates instead of the more specifics. The hope here was that by having separate leaf/transit ASNs, we could perform another level of routing table size management/optimization. I think optimizing for backward compatibility for transit initially, and, eventually, for transit routing table size while still providing leaf multihoming capabilities is desirable. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.