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

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Brian Dickson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> If the "private use" ASNs were NOT from a well-known range, you would detect this how?

some other macro of integers perhaps?

>
> This actually does a lot to demonstrate the usefulness of the old range, and of having a new range larger in size.

how does it help show a larger size range would be helpful?

>
> If 192.168.0.0/16 was the only RFC 1918 space, the value of 10.0.0.0/8 might not be as clear.
> The analogy is pretty clear.
>

expand pls.

> Not only is there value in more space, there is value in distinct ranges.

a distinct range is of value, sure. how are more ranges helpful though?

> Having non-globally-unique space that is well known allows third parties to detect leaks, filter, and make permanent bogon filters.
>

you mean it makes people carry crufty config for exceptions forever... sure.
it also does show some obvious routing problems to the world, or does
it? maybe it's not a routing problem but a 'forgot to
cut/paste/replace my ASN for my customer ASN' ? it's not clear at all
from the data on the wire, except that the reaction to: "I see 65535
in an as-path" is "that is bad".

if I see:
 198.41.0.0/24 as-path: 1 2 3 26415 65534

is that a leak or a missed configuration on a 26415 device? (forgot to
put remove-private-asn on the upstream neighbor to 3).

> In case it is not obvious:
>
> Support (strongly).

mostly I'm ambivalent at this point. I'm not really in favor of adding
more complexity here, especially when there is a regular remedy: "Hi
ARIN, I need 300 asns for my next 300 deployments, all which are
scheduled to happen in the next Y days, all of which have a unique
routing policy."

-chris