[address-policy-wg] 2014-03 two cents on multi homing ASN requirement

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:25:18AM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote:
> > With "the cloud" allowing for effective single homing these days, do we really need to codify any sort of multi-homing requirement? I also don't see the utility of a list of reasons that someone can be assigned an ASN. Isn't "I'm connecting to a network and speaking bgp" good enough.
> 
> 16b are scarce and special, and one application where you really want
> to have 16b ASN is when you have >1 upstream and >0 downstream, then
> you really want to support TE via communities, and for this you are in
> competitive disadvantage without 16b ASN.

The need for TE communities may already exist with multihoming to a
single upstream AS. E.g. TE comms to modify localpref to make a link
strict-backup in multihoming-to-single-upstream situations. Think
702:[789]

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0