On Sep 16, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > I support this document as worthwhile for WG adoption. However I do have > some comments. > > The first comment is that, while I agree with the conclusions of the document > in general, I don't entirely see what operational problems are caused by > single-ASN anycast deployments. It certainly seems more convenient to have > unique ASNs for each node, but I can't imagine a concrete need.
Detection of route leaks is _much more difficult if a common origin ASN could pop up anywhere with any set of adjacent upstream ASNs. This helps with that aspect. Additionally, if a particular node were exhibiting some anomalous conditions, e.g., routing instabilities resulting the in entire prefix being surprised via flap damping, or perhaps some aberrant datapath behavior, this would provide a discriminator for which operators might consider routing policy specification over. > This is probably due to my lack of imagination and/or experience with the > problems the authors have encountered, so I'd suggest the draft expands on > this topic. Yep, great point, definitely will.. And if others have ideas, please pass'm along.. > My second comment is that the document should acknowledge the case where a > common ASN is desirable. For instance, information "hiding" might be a > desired benefit of using a single ASN for all nodes. Obviously the draft > should recommend the approach with the most benefit, having enumerated the > pros and cons. But it should acknowledge the cons of multiple ASNs (aka the > pros of single ASN) as well. Yeah, another good point. I'll give due consideration to both these points in the next revision. Thanks for the feedback Benson, -danny _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
