Talk:Autonomous system (Internet)

message: since there are no "active" external links, i'd like to point out
* http://serversniff.net/asreport.php and
* http://clez.net/net.whois
* http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/
All of them offer indepth-information about specific AS. Since I'm affiliated with 1) and 2) i won't insert them myself. --217.80.49.75 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Representing AS Numbers in hex is non-standard and just leads to confuse readers of the article. It would be helpful if the article followed the format defined in RFC 5396.
66.239.79.6 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleased to oblige, a task long overdue. Kbrose (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of hex

message: Is there a missing word in this section or a better way to word this section: "Numbers of the form 0.y are exactly the old 16-bit AS numbers, 1.y numbers and 65535.65535 are reserved, and the remainder of the space is available ..."? --Javamen (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language mechanics 

message: Can someone clarify this line- "Usually Internet Exchange Point ASNs are transparent" 69.86.6.150 (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, that is refering to the "AS_PATH", when you have a direct peering at an IXP, you won't see the IXPs ASN and if both parties are using the public Route server the configuration might omit/remove the ASN in between, depending on the configuration, for e.g. SwissIX or others. On Cisco routers this command is achived with: "no bgp enforce-first-as" (IOS-XE) or "bgp enforce-first-as disable" (IOS-XR).
--huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant can someone clarify it in the article. I would paste your text into the article but it is has too much jargon. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't understand it, than you don't need to worry about it, it's transparent because it works. Some IXPs (Internet Exchange Point) also use private ASN for that purpose and these are also omited from the AS-PATH. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether I understand it or not is beside the point. The article has to explain this. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good luck :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASNs are transparent 

message: There is a range after 63999 that is reserved for documentation and private usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the 16 bit block of the public ASNs end at 63999 instead of 64534? 

message: I suggest something like this for the human/layman def:
An autonomous system is a network that runs with little to no human intervention—able to configure, monitor, and maintain itself independently.
''
This is the current definition:
An autonomous system (AS) is a collection of connected Internet Protocol (IP) routing prefixes under the control of one or more network operators on behalf of a single administrative entity or domain that presents a common, clearly defined routing policy to the internet.[1]
''
--shmooth- (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what it means. It's not "autonomous" as in autonomous vehicle. Some things are complex. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose smth like AS is what Internet consists of (or even what Internet IS, "net" in internet stands for AS actually) and ASs are controled by RIRs and NRO (IGF in particular). Because there is a very little info abot that in Internet itself (sic!). 2A00:1370:812C:5D73:4493:5501:BB24:D2E6 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should use a layman's definition first, then expand into nerd-speak 

message: I'm not a native English speaker, so apoligies if it's just me, but I'm having a hard time making sense of this sentence:
: The newer definition in RFC 1930 came into use because multiple organizations can run Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) using private AS numbers to an ISP that connects all those organizations to the Internet.
Do organizations run BGP to an ISP?
Or do they use private AS numbers to an ISP? 
I can't make any sense of either option.
I feel like something is missing between "to" and "an ISP".
Teo8976 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Private AS number is just a field in BGP header. Nothing is missing, really. Maybe an optic fiber ;) 109.252.90.66 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it me or this sentence is unclear AF? 

message: Is there really scope for 4 separate articles here?  Should some or all of these be merged?
* Internet service provider
* Network service provider
* Local Internet registry
* Autonomous System (Internet)
DefaultFree (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DUPLICATE]]?