IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 12 December 2012 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 828A821F8826 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DpYifg6Rkrzv for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5835021F87C9 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c10so2536686ieb.11 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:06 -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=5gkhSNnsXw/AumHYtwftb+KMKT/yyiXJBqfIJo/xDpM=; b=amSApp3WyaGqhaK+wcY7eFmQihN4e5c5S8fizYgwlcjqzmVskgafzJFUcI35m66Y7e g7Hs1cmLNyPQ3Be8b4XMa1TQKY9Ub3zEqSZCSzGYLeBHYKBBGJGTrX/4ZgdSkuTqCDye IYub0xDR5ey15MrinqvZq+D2pM/XBNURujGV3d8P1pTwNPXEmp/8a2qEjDk06sDu2SqU CgNLerWklDmzQrxY0C1/Kugq+W2LDPw8z/FTDO8yVFlBGAFsiHNRb+UKHUjV9lnqA1KF 2t7dT8eSUzLGGBZpFw6ZUdLhq5nQkdZ02Qh/5Y4b/CLR6AK/AsqhrX/qoLju6Mld3eGn TOug==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.150.176 with SMTP id uj16mr14461121igb.38.1355337786192; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.135.100 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50C8CF69.4070202@foobar.org>
References: <CA+b+ERnuWZ+r2O-eFhe3hU00uoU4UKnRcbhLNVXU7p5+DjoWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6C16AE3B7961044B04A1BCEC6E2F93603D12A0C@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <20121210225858.GC24937@puck.nether.net> <m2d2yh32cw.wl%randy@psg.com> <CA+b+ERnSVvewSpftXs3FhW12-S+sgnB1SwD4L+xqFW+hhbQayw@mail.gmail.com> <7120600D-71BD-4E61-8F06-25B7C2BAE6A8@riw.us> <20121211185917.GA21813@puck.nether.net> <CA+b+ERnzo2BLWjE1J_dMfYuExbG9WYJroPE4ZAWg++KK2_jy1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+b+ERm=Agr7b6JXcXOwiP4wBjnEFmnVNt5fAJrn18R0hGtSzg@mail.gmail.com> <50C78C29.3070406@foobar.org> <50C8B8D9.4090903@umn.edu> <50C8C491.4040705@foobar.org> <CAH1iCiqfZRLv2pBEg3gKxT=ZXf7AXCPJ_+QibOpgeFfOuqFK7g@mail.gmail.com> <50C8CE86.10103@umn.edu> <50C8CF69.4070202@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:43:05 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fisyLPvoSD90eSzPvZo0K4yyA7U
Message-ID: <CA+b+ER=tp+tdmNomjAXpaRBG8cYNo1SybAr1WoJ9frBUSGoOrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF IDR Working Group <idr@ietf.org>
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:43:08 -0000

Are you putting this regex in today ?

Otherwise the sooner this goes through your vendors will be able to
provide you one keyword match for the new private AS range in the
policy language of your choice.

So I can't quite see what's the point of this regex debate now ....

Cheers,
R.


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 18:35, David Farmer wrote:
>> Nick, why is this any different than creating a regexp that matches the
>> current private ASN range?
>
> well, throw the regexp on the table and let's take a look.
>
> Nick

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