Re: ISP support for use of 4-byte ASNs in peering

[Michael Hare <michael.hare () doit wisc edu>]

While attempting to focus on ISPs there is still [unbelievably] a vendor 
support issue.  You may consider this a procurement failure, but the 
fact remains that some products [Cisco me3400e] have yet to implement 
support.

-Michael

On 8/9/2011 9:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 09/08/2011 14:47, John Curran wrote:
> >    At ARIN, we are still having parties returning 4-byte ASN's (seeking 2-byte instead),
> >    indicating that the 4-byte ones are not sufficiently accepted in peering to be usable.
> >    This is obviously a less than desirable situation, and it appears that it is not trending
> >    towards resolution at this time.
>
> At INEX, we see 60% of IXP connections which can handle ASN32 natively.
> However, INEX is a small IXP and I haven't seen similar figures from other
> IXPs which could validate this 60/40 split.
>
> Having said that, in the IXP world most new service providers connect into
> route servers, so there is often no perceived requirement for direct
> ASN32->ASN16 interconnection - the intersection of new service providers
> and ASN32 holders is quite large.  And if you really want a bilateral
> peering relationship, there's no reason not to use AS23456.
>
> > Thoughts?
>
> - interior BGP community management is great fun with an ASN32, oh yes.
>
> - i don't have much sympathy for people who whine about not being able to
> support ASN32 peerings.  There is no good reason for this these days.
>
> - from personal experience, I understand why ASN32 is less popular.
> However, it's certainly usable.
>
> Nick