On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:18:04PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 12:54 , Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:36:44AM -0500, Dennis Burgess wrote:
I have a network that has three peers, two are at one site and the third is geographically diverse, and there is NO connection between the two separate networks.
So, you have two islands? Technically, that would be separate ASNs as they are separatre routing policies, but the modern world has adapted.
Should we change the rules? I know with 64-bit ASNs mean it is tough to run out of ASNs, but not sure we really want each island to be its own AS going forward.
Comments from the peanut gallery?
I missed your proposal for loop detection to replace the current behavior in the above text. Was it compressed? I will admit that it is Not Hard for people who know what they're doing to operate well outside default and standard behavior. That's why I merely recommended that the questioner educate themselves as to the whys and wherefore before just turning knobs. I would submit that not knowing loop detection is a default and valuable feature might indicate the person should understand why and how it affects them. I don't have the hubris to believe that I understand his business needs, nor edge conditions/failure modes where a different solution might be needed. Cheers, Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NANOG