Re: [Idr] Call for adoption of draft-mitchell-idr-private-as-reservation-01 as IDR WG document

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 8/27/12 21:29 CDT, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Sure, RFC2270 seems to be one reasonable solution for the use case of an
>> ISP providing ASNs to single homed customers that do not require route
>> connectivity to each other except via default, and yes, I'm aware of it
>> and seen it deployed at multiple places I've worked.  Of course, the
>> unsaid thing in this draft is that using a seperate (private) ASN per
>> customer site was not viable due to limited private use ASN space
>
> 2270 is widely deployed.  i have not run across the case where we wanted
> more than one private asn.  any sane provider is doing templated or
> generated config, and using a single asn is simpler and just works.
>
> i am sure i can dream up convoluted uses for a mass of as numbers.  but
> what i can not do is come up with convoluted case which is worth the end
> run on having good registration of the use/assignment of those asns.

I'm sorry but it is not a convoluted use case, section 3.1 of RFC 2270 
details the exact case, if the customer wants a full route table.  And 
BGP customer wanting a full global route table in not convoluted, it is 
a perfectly reasonable request from a customer.   If they don't have a 
globally unique ASN to use, then in that case the easiest thing to do is 
use a unique private ASN for that customer and no other customer.  I 
recommend the customer gets an RIR assigned globally unique ASN, but 
some customers don't want to do that.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================