Re: [Idr] comments on draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-mod-00.txt

>>-) On Issue - 3:
>> 
>>    The mechanism described in RFC 4893 is designed to avoid the need for a
>>    second transition for removing one of the attributes from the global routing
>>    system.
>> 
>>    The proposal in Sect. 6.1 is backwards, and would require exactly the second
>>    transition that we have worked very hard to avoid. The proposal is also not
>>    realistic as there is simply no easy way to know when the transition is
>>    "complete".

...

> 
>    When transition is over, a BGP speaker can use AS4_PATH only. It is a 
> simple concept and no overloading.

But there is no way for any individual BGP speak to know when transition 
is "over". I have to agree with Enke in observing that the proposal is 
indeed backwards.

>>-) On Issue - 4:
> 
>> 

> */[SC>] I talked with a few people at NANOG who experienced that 
> AS_TRANS value was used often as AS number in the current BGP 
> deployment. We can not expect that every operator or administrator is 
> fully aware of reserved AS_TRANS value for this special purpose.

I'm sorry, but this is a specious line of reasoning.

Overall I see noting of use in this draft to warrant modification of RFC4893

   Geoff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr