On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 15:22, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 02:53:26PM +0000, Dave Hart wrote:
I recognize there's no practical shortage of AS numbers. BGP's preference for low AS numbers doesn't come into play much. On the other hand, a low AS number can't hurt at the human level when negotiating peering or attracting customers.
I think you are confusing a "low ASN" with a "low router ID", or maybe "low neighbor IP address".
For a refresher, see: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk365/technologies_tech_note09186a0080094431...
A low ASN has no technical value, as far as I know.
I am exposed! I have never connected to a router that wasn't a looking glass. I am not worthy... I did try to hide that fact by doing a little research. I was fooled by: "Prefer the route learned from the BGP speaker with the numerically lowest BGP identifier" and (mis)interpreted BGP identifier as ASN.
Socially perhaps some folks give additional respect/envy to those with low ASN's. There's an old joke in the peering community, ASN < 3 digits, peer with them. ASN with 4 digits, think about peering with them. ASN with 5 digits, forget it. However, I do believe it's just a joke, I'm sure more folks peer with Akamai (20940) than with NASA (24).
That's both funny and helpful, thanks. Dave Hart