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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

All,

I think Jon should remove any use case examples from the draft as
there is no way one could enforce that the new range will _only_ be
used in those use cases.

I think Jon in fact already said it very clearly that the point of the
draft is to get IANA registration. That' it - no more no less.

It would be up to individual operators to use such new range in L3VPNs
as Shane points out, in DCs or for that matter in ISPs.

Also it seems that it could be useful for dynamically routed home
gateways and in that respect I think the current range may be in fact
too small so I am sympathetic to broaden this space. If this is bit
boundary aligned or human aligned I think is secondary .. I have no
personal preference.

Many thx,
R.



On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
> this misses my point entirely.  we know not to announce private ASs.
>
> my point was
>
>   o i do not accept the use example in the draft as justification
>     for an allocation of more private ASs.  in fact, i object to
>     it and specifically object to the draft being advanced.  we do
>     this already without your requested allocation which then can
>     only be viewed as an end-run around the IR system.
>
>   o i can see tli's point about use in large datacenter deployments.
>     if the draft is changed to use that (or a similar real need) as
>     the motivation, i would reconsider my objection.
>
> apologies, but i do not know how to be more clear.
>
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr