Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hello Chris,

> I'm not sure the complexity is helpful.

I am somehow puzzled on your "adding complexity to BGP implementation"
issue reg this draft.

MP-BGP extension opened a autobahn for making BGP implementations more
complex. Number of existing BGP extensions and new ones coming soon do
have huge impact to BGP implementations. Are you proposing to freeze
BGP now and not allow any new extensions ?

Adding new #define range to check when some filtering policy is
enabled seems to me like not even in the white noise level as compared
with things which BGP is carrying today and perhaps will carry
tomorrow.

Best,
R.


On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Christopher Morrow
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> So what is exactly the concern here ? The fact that folks are trying
>> to reserve large pool of AS numbers for their own use or that folks
>> are afraid that this will be used in AFI/SAFI 1/1 and/or 2/1 and will
>> end up visible in the Internet ?
>
> my original issue, which I think jon actually does capture in his
> draft, is that there are exceptions in code today for 'special asn
> blocks', and testing/config-options/etc that goes along with that...
> Adding another 'special asn block' is piling onto an already not super
> idea, and extending the need for better testing/config-management/etc.
>
> I'm not sure the complexity is helpful. It's not clear to me that
> adding more private-asn space is helpful to the larger user base of
> BGP either. (should we be fixing corner cases for implementors?)
>
> -chris