Re: ASN draft

[Paul Traina <[e-mail]>]

  Humm,  perhaps what we -really- need is an addenda to RFC 1597 to block
  out some ASN for routing use?  :)  

OK, 0-64k. :-)
  
  Not me. I bask in the glow of my vast wealth of cisco futures.
  (I really need the money to play in the stock market... :)
  
  > Why does my IGRP, EIGRP, or OSPF identifer (what we used to call the ASN)
  > have to have anything to do with a NIC assigned AS?  All I need to do is
  
  Nada.  Thats one good reason to not co-opt the NIC ASN (as an AS tag) for
  use in routing... except that it is the "right" way to ident AS'es in 
  routing registries.  Too bad that it is also used by BGP for routing.

Agreed, but it is, and there's nothing else really useful that requires ASNs
today, so I think it's OK to see this as the primary driver for the ASN space.
  
  Lets quit now while we agree. :)
  
  >> Is there any reason to maintain the idea of an AS as a collection of prefi
  >> under common administration and sharing the same security/trust policies?
  >> If you can show just cause, then I'm willing to agree with you, at which
  >> point, I will wet my panties because we're going to run out of AS space ne
  
  Did my reason work?  Is it time to change?
  (The "its the way things are tagged in the route registry to define AS bounds
>>"
   argument that really have nothing to do w/ BGP per say and everything to do
   with who has the "right" to be the "home-AS" for any given prefix/mask pair)

You've got Jon in your pocket.  Define a new number space. We've already taken
yours. :-)

But seriously, I think you're in the Merrit trap.  This home AS stuff is
a bunch of BS.  There's nothing really (right now) that says that I can't
advertise my nets with multiple first ASs in the path... heck, the "P"
service provider and the "N" service provider have been doing that for
years.

Why should a prefix be tied to an AS?  That's just the way Merrit organized
things,  but I think that was one honking mistake, looking back on it now.