RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu@cw.net
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Robinson [mailto:matthew@crescent.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:57 AM To: Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
In the documentation for address space provision is made for assigning addresses to organisations that will NEVER be connected to the Internet but require uniqueness from private address space.
Whilst I can't think of a specific example to apply to AS numbers, should this uniqueness be extended to AS numbers that do not show up in the routing table but are very much on-line?
I also recon 3 months to get online although given the length of time it can take a big comapany to integrate a small one lets say 12 months for returning.
Kind regards
Matthew
If it is nowhere advertised you could use a privat AS-number... Wolfgang
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Lu, Ping Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:55 PM To: 'Matthew Robinson'; Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu@cw.net
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Robinson [mailto:matthew@crescent.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:57 AM To: Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
In the documentation for address space provision is made for assigning addresses to organisations that will NEVER be connected to the Internet but require uniqueness from private address space.
Whilst I can't think of a specific example to apply to AS numbers, should this uniqueness be extended to AS numbers that do not show up in the routing table but are very much on-line?
I also recon 3 months to get online although given the length of time it can take a big comapany to integrate a small one lets say 12 months for returning.
Kind regards
Matthew
And when two organisations interconnect using a private peering ? Filters are great, but similar foul ups can and will occur as with the use of RFC1918 address space, as per my previous rant^We-mail. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Tremmel, WT5-RIPE" <wtremmel@vianetworks.com> To: "Lu, Ping" <PLu@cw.net>; "'Matthew Robinson'" <matthew@crescent.org.uk>; "Vladimir A. Jakovenko" <vovik@lucky.net> Cc: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:27 PM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
If it is nowhere advertised you could use a privat AS-number...
Wolfgang
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Lu, Ping Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:55 PM To: 'Matthew Robinson'; Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu@cw.net
-----Original Message----- From: Matthew Robinson [mailto:matthew@crescent.org.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:57 AM To: Vladimir A. Jakovenko Cc: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
In the documentation for address space provision is made for assigning addresses to organisations that will NEVER be connected to the Internet but require uniqueness from private address space.
Whilst I can't think of a specific example to apply to AS numbers, should this uniqueness be extended to AS numbers that do not show up in the routing table but are very much on-line?
I also recon 3 months to get online although given the length of time it can take a big comapany to integrate a small one lets say 12 months for returning.
Kind regards
Matthew
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:54:46 -0400 "Lu, Ping" <PLu@cw.net> wrote:
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Isn't that the definition of private AS? - kurtis -
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:54:46 -0400 "Lu, Ping" <PLu@cw.net> wrote:
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Isn't that the definition of private AS?
The argument here is probably that it may be rather difficult to choose such a private AS number, if you have lots and lots of customers, that it would never clash with their customers' (depending on how it's being used) internal usage. In general, I don't think this kind of AS number use is appropriate in a bigger scale. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
If the customers have customers with an AS, they may have an (official) AS too. If not, its up to you to setup a numbering plan for private AS numbers in your confederation. It seems to me, we are repeating the discussion about private IP space here... best regards, Wolfgang
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Pekka Savola Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:10 AM To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist Cc: Lu, Ping; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
The argument here is probably that it may be rather difficult to choose such a private AS number, if you have lots and lots of customers, that it would never clash with their customers' (depending on how it's being used) internal usage.
In general, I don't think this kind of AS number use is appropriate in a bigger scale.
The argument here is probably that it may be rather difficult to choose such a private AS number, if you have lots and lots of customers, that it would never clash with their customers' (depending on how it's being used) internal usage.
Uhm, you are saying that there would be singlehomed customers (let's call them A) of a ISP, that would need BGP to talk to the provider. Customer A then in turn would have single-homed customers that would need to talk BGP to them? This sounds like a very teoretical excersie to me, but maybe people are building their networks liek this. In that case I suggest they figure out how to deal with this...:)
In general, I don't think this kind of AS number use is appropriate in a bigger scale.
Correct. And the Internet is becoming pretty large scale. - kurtis -
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Isn't that the definition of private AS?
Not exactly. There are some cases where there is a valid reason for a public AS number to be issued, despite of the fact that it has semi-private nature. Same thing applies with IP addresses - take, for example, 147.204.0.0/16 ... Regards, Beri
Definitely there is AS number being used within our backbone but not advertised to public network. So the AS number should be allowed to be registered but not advertised the same way as IP address is treated.
Isn't that the definition of private AS?
Not exactly.
There are some cases where there is a valid reason for a public AS number to be issued, despite of the fact that it has semi-private nature. Same thing applies with IP addresses - take, for example, 147.204.0.0/16 ...
"Some cases" and "semi-private" doesn't sound to convincing to me :) I think that this is up to the definition of "publicly visible". If I have one upstream and several peers, that is to me "public". I see few (no?) other real reasons for assigning an AS that is not seen through two or more paths in the global routing table. Best regards, - kurtis -
participants (6)
-
Berislav Todorovic -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Lu, Ping -
Pekka Savola -
Peter Galbavy -
Wolfgang Tremmel, WT5-RIPE