IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 30 November 2012 04:46 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C7721F8456 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eRFUwmM0sRzq for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A1C21F8453 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b47so35300eek.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dyzVJsppOEwsWdrWgJAHFAdDjeRt/xn3E8LTZaRd5Ek=; b=0cgcRLNcujSP7iTQd3MUvJviF341vFu+VEmWps+3QWlKN3s7I2rSttHIZBPiXIfOi9 erpxUkAkmtas+eDvdiaYzuYnc7O73XQm+HEvfu55+URYmmTFkGcpNu7cwGqeFmgbYMKw xqNRnC0HMb8dRrgEc9Jx7BDFT7tK+xsdTuvhyHhDefsSM8Lajmv6TyuFp6x8/fI1V5Pu yUqB3Yfr5OQ/Ln38rNkWy8GbAS+OZglo7UPJvTCzuK1lWACJUm7OhXlzqC8CZADcOyNK FRWytacogF/kr8RIDQQxz75lYxK9Xd0m8sdEZ9S9rnDjyJ2HGur4GH3rki2wOQYLDymx NBLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.211.135 with SMTP id w7mr332124eeo.4.1354250787381; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.223.96.5 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:46:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ER=rL6WAMuu5cJUQk94ObUrhKKgmiNuxRhMGJbavCg6S3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B6B72499-E9D0-4281-84EB-6CA53694866E@juniper.net> <D704E7E3-3A95-4696-9757-9E17605E670C@tony.li> <378E396E-3F4B-4ACC-83D1-C4931524FECD@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERneavhy1gzKRSnCfN+YjYcU0+3WgBg6f68gq=tpx8yV5g@mail.gmail.com> <1AC79BDA-C088-47B4-888D-4B0428FB7C4F@puck.nether.net> <B549F708-0D5E-4B22-AC91-B6CE61B258FE@tony.li> <CAL9jLaZdX_jem0JdSGHzuhc3GDZXMDR0kvMKq5xr3D-EWYbNVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ER=rL6WAMuu5cJUQk94ObUrhKKgmiNuxRhMGJbavCg6S3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 23:46:27 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FcA5MBHOCBMksQvfqyl9AIeWHi8
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaa27PZwa+fj_okSHTjjnxQeR8q67Nb5V0aYKOBbqcHtjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:46:28 -0000

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> So what is exactly the concern here ? The fact that folks are trying
> to reserve large pool of AS numbers for their own use or that folks
> are afraid that this will be used in AFI/SAFI 1/1 and/or 2/1 and will
> end up visible in the Internet ?

my original issue, which I think jon actually does capture in his
draft, is that there are exceptions in code today for 'special asn
blocks', and testing/config-options/etc that goes along with that...
Adding another 'special asn block' is piling onto an already not super
idea, and extending the need for better testing/config-management/etc.

I'm not sure the complexity is helpful. It's not clear to me that
adding more private-asn space is helpful to the larger user base of
BGP either. (should we be fixing corner cases for implementors?)

-chris

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status