This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Moving "2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)" to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Aug 18 18:26:50 CEST 2014
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25:18AM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: > > With "the cloud" allowing for effective single homing these days, do we really need to codify any sort of multi-homing requirement? I also don't see the utility of a list of reasons that someone can be assigned an ASN. Isn't "I'm connecting to a network and speaking bgp" good enough. > > 16b are scarce and special, and one application where you really want > to have 16b ASN is when you have >1 upstream and >0 downstream, then > you really want to support TE via communities, and for this you are in > competitive disadvantage without 16b ASN. The need for TE communities may already exist with multihoming to a single upstream AS. E.g. TE comms to modify localpref to make a link strict-backup in multihoming-to-single-upstream situations. Think 702:[789] Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Moving "2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)" to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]