Re: 1-prefix, 1-AS question

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>om>, Paul Traina writes:
> 
> It seems to me to be quite reasonable to aggregate across provider
> boundaries today, thanks to our friend, the "AS_SET" as-path
> sub-type.

We (providers collectively) just don't have our act together wrt
coordinating aggregation across multiple providers.

> The only case where you would not wish to do this is if there was a
> requirement to distinguish differing routing policies.  However, given
> that that requirement is likely not global in nature, I see no great
> benefit at burdening the entire Internet with individual provider ASs.
> 
> Given my belief that you are aware of the ability of the global
> routing infrastructure to handle this situation,  is your concern due
> to a limitation in the configuration utility you are using?

Yes.  And ad hoc configuration (manual edit) makes the chance of error
and misrouting even greater.

> If so, how do you cope with second-level aggregation today?
> 
> (Continuation of this discussion belongs on CIDRD, not BGP, unless
>  there are actual BGP protocol issues at stake here.)
> 
> Paul

No protocol issues.  No continuation needed at this point.

Curtis