Re: ASN draft

[Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[e-mail]>]

Paul Traina ([e-mail]) on February  6:
> Which are ONLY useful for making route determinations.  If there is no
> route determination differential, then there's nothing wrong with clumping
> together ASs.

I agree with this definition. However, I am not sure if we agree what
the "route determination differential" is. Perhaps we do.

Two domains, a provider and a customer, may have the same set of policies
and it may be OK for the customer to use the provider's ASN if they
were in isolation.

However, a third transit provider, distant in the Internet, may want
to *differentiate* between the provider and the customer, or this
customer from another customer of the provider. That is there is
"route determination differential". If the customer uses the same ASN
as its provider, the third provider is forced to use network lists,
which do not scale as nicely.

I guess in this case these three domains (as being "consenting
adults"), may agree to use a different ASN for this customer. The
draft fails to mention that "route determination differential" can be
somewhere other than the customer and the provider and may cause a
different ASN for the customer.

The draft also fails to mention that the main motivation of the work
is to avoid ASN space exhaustion. It sound more like this is what we
would do even if the ASN space was infinite.

Tony, please correct me if I am wrong in my observations regarding
what the draft says. I have read it long time ago and only looked at
the diffs in the new draft which were very minor.

Cengiz

-- 
Cengiz Alaettinoglu       Information Sciences Institute
[phone]            University of Southern California