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

Hi, folks:

I am posting my comments to the mailing list as I will not be at the 
upcoming
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 
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".

-) 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 
notification.

Thanks.   -- Enke

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