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

["Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <[e-mail]>]

>I think both Tony and Jay forgot that routing and reachability is not
>about originator AS .. it is about prefixes they advertise.
>
>If peering ISP AS chooses to peer with private as or remove private as
>from AS-PATH or for completeness substitute with their own it is all
>ok. He takes responsibility to route data to such customer(s).
>
>Any subsequent removal of private as in the path also results in the
>same responsibility of the provider who permits private AS for
>peering.
>
>I am not sure why there is concern with it on the list.


Not sure you understood the issue Jay was pointing to - but it is a
problem worth talking about if we are serious about advancing this draft.

Say an enterprise starts using ASN 4278190081. It already has a bunch of
ASNs from the 16-bit private AS range and relies on the correct behavior
of "remove-private-as" from the ISP. The ISP routers are not upgraded to
understand 4278190081 is a private ASN. We get into all sorts of
interesting scenarios based on the connectivity graph (changes in traffic
pattern come to mind as I know folks compare AS_PATH length taking into
account remove-private-as).

The 'operational considerations' section does talk about this - but I
would like it described in more detail.

- Pradosh