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

Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Sun, 02 March 2008 05:29 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412133A6F8F; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:29:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.951
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YPJgLDEcQ2N; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1ED33A6CEC; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E873A6BD2 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:28:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4OJ6YnzQT7z for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E61133A6CEC for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:27:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2008 21:27:49 -0800
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com []) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m225RmKC026513 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 21:27:48 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com []) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m225RmCQ005190 for <idr@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:27:48 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:27:48 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:27:47 -0500
Message-ID: <47CA3B8D.9060304@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:30:53 -0800
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idr <idr@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2008 05:27:47.0711 (UTC) FILETIME=[268808F0:01C87C26]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1576; t=1204435668; x=1205299668; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=enkechen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Enke=20Chen=20<enkechen@cisco.com> |Subject:=20comments=20on=20draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-m od-00.txt |Sender:=20; bh=27eU5rwTP598sJCx4DV7Tv1X0jfj9Xcr4zPnz4KFXFM=; b=kmBacygRVClZQ2CWdUGnlSr6ApN0l9nS/Y0wwnu62F8u8/F+Rr7sSf2u1S C7/v6loRVd5TsmDjDQ+7IZ35RgAWG23sFxw8VmxP+upG0b0VC0Ncfgrd+mgp iEIzNnEMAj;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=enkechen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Subject: [Idr] comments on draft-chakrabarti-idr-rfc4893-mod-00.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, folks:

I am posting my comments to the mailing list as I will not be at the 
IETF meeting.

-) On Issue - 1

   IMO RFC4893 is pretty clear in stating that the Capability "carries 
the 4-octet
   Autonomous System number of the speaker in the Capability Value 
field". What
   else needs to be said?

-) On Issue - 2:

   The issues with having islands of the same AS number are well understood.
   Please see "RFC 2270: Using a Dedicated AS for Sites Homed to a 
Single Provider".

   We could add the reference when there is ever sufficient reason to 
update the document
   in the future.

-) 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 

    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

-) On Issue - 4:

    The reservation of AS_TRANS is relatively new. There are tons of old 
speakers in
    the field that would happily peer using the value if so configured. 
We can not
    mandate what an old speaker should or should not do as they are 
already there
    in the field :-)

    Also note that AS_TRANS is not the only reserved AS number.

    It is not clear if there is any practical value for introducing the 

Thanks.   -- Enke

Idr mailing list