AW: [isp-bgp] BCP for multi-homing to the same provider entail using a private ASN

["John van Oppen" <john@...>]

I don't think it is necessary.   In fact, at least in sprint's case (AS1790) (according to ARIN) they had those AS numbers before the 64512-65535 ASes were registered.

I use private ASes for customers who are multi-homed to my network all the time, there is really no issue of leaking the routes as at least cisco routers have the "remove-private-AS" option for neighbors.  Actually, it is beneficial as one can then assign a different private AS to every multi-homed customer for tracking purposes.

So I guess the answer to your question is that sprint and verio probably justified their AS allocations under completely different situations than today and that it could not be done again nor does it need to be.

John :)

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Bob Tinkelman [mailto:bob@...] 
Gesendet: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:36 AM
An: isp-bgp@isp-bgp.com
Cc: isp-bgp@...
Betreff: Re:[isp-bgp] BCP for multi-homing to the same provider entail using a private ASN

A few days ago, Jeffrey Belles <jaffa@...> posted this
extract from the Sprint web site:

>  From http://www.sprint.net/faq/as1790.html
> "
> The Autonomous System 1790 is reserved for use exclusively by those
> customers that do not currently have another Internet Service Provider,
> and currently have, or are in the process of implementing, multiple
> connections utilizing the same IP space (multi-homed neworks) into the
> Sprintlink backbone, via a dedicated IP Private Line. To utilize AS
> 1790, please contact your account team for ordering information.
> "

I remember from when I worked for Verio that they did the same
thing (but with a different ASN, of course).

Is there any standard terminology for ASNs used in this way?
I've seen "private ASN" used as a synonym for "reserved ASN",
that is, referring to the high-numberd ASNs (64512-65535). 

In any case, it appears that both Sprint and Verio and possibly
other large ISPs have decided that there are advantages to using
a non-reserved ASN for this purpose, as opposed to using one of
the reserved ASNs.

Is the reason for this obvious?  Is it just that you don't need
to worry about making a mistake resulting in a bgp-route with an
ASN-path containing a reserved ASN leaking to the world?

In any case, I submitted an application to ARIN for a 2nd ASN to
be allocated to my network.  I completed the application honestly,
indicating that the ASN would be assigned to a collection of nets
at different customer sites, but all the peering would be between
the new net and my existing net.  I refered to Sprint's 1790 as an
example.  ARIN rejected the application because the new ASN would
peer with only a single upstream.

Are Sprint and Verio actually doing something different with their
ASNs that makes them ARIN-legal?  Or is this simply a case of
their having acquired the ASNs in a different way, and then using
them however they want, without ARIN having the energy to track
things like that?

--
Bob Tinkelman <bob@...>
ISPnet, Inc.    718.464.4747

_______________ 

 ______________



To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2004 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.





To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Copyright 2005 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.