Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-08.txt> (Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)) to Informational RFC
SM <sm@resistor.net> Thu, 31 May 2012 22:28 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3F621F85DF for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qo+HRHcG6HHd for <grow@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3642A21F85B9 for <grow@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4VMSAMs005967; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1338503295; i=@resistor.net; bh=a/iM63AW5hJ2dzo+US4JaHxX9PssVuWMLRWvTLAgW/Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=yzhfA7j1PDX+IK1eevcbOMiL5MrZi5znvGJ1tDi7SVdaN/+YfVLE0lcDWAdlTXN00 xtGqXY340dozCNeP6PmwtGsjQWKssWV1AY3bZSvlNktS/ffd/pX45ojCRHLa8U5D8p DN7dXtZygmNwnVcHS1qyaMteTwEad4qjPfhDYMpU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1338503295; i=@resistor.net; bh=a/iM63AW5hJ2dzo+US4JaHxX9PssVuWMLRWvTLAgW/Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=ZApG9L1u9oOe48Dx9uYSPKXFSxlaLeO9mVZWPV9yTm2iOkyWdbvZx8TZKI3tXb1rN +lcbSKQbaRmEtOcWQrhoLnTdVkQDFN1vzZiYzpoEvS3H/wXTeRckflvB+BJN39x5jX x/74ziRr6XS380ImX41yo40IYUgCZE09KkP0fX4U=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120531150923.098e3200@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:25:10 -0700
To: draft-ietf-grow-simple-va.all@tools.ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120529160722.12364.75583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120529160722.12364.75583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:34:39 -0700
Cc: grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-08.txt> (Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)) to Informational RFC
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:28:21 -0000
At 09:07 29-05-2012, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>(grow) to consider the following document:
>- 'Simple Virtual Aggregation (S-VA)'
> <draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-08.txt> as Informational RFC
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
As a nit:
"Generally, any more specific route which carries the same next hop as
the VA-prefix 0/0 is eligible for suppression. However, provided
that there was at least one less specific prefix (e.g., 1.0.0.0/8)
and the next-hop of such prefix was different from that of the VA
0/0, those more specific prefixes (e.g., 1.1.1.0/24) which are
otherwise subject to suppression would not be eligible for
suppression anymore."
From APNIC:
inetnum: 1.1.1.0 - 1.1.1.255
netname: Debogon-prefix
descr: APNIC Debogon Project
descr: APNIC Pty Ltd
Is there a reason why the Global Routing Operations WG is repurposing
APNIC IPv4 address space in this draft?
Regards,
-sm