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

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:

> Jared,
> 
>> Take this currently visible global route:
>> 
>> 2800:130::/32 12956 19169 27947 65001 27820 I
> 
> True.
> 
> So this prefix will be dropped by anyone who has private AS of 65001.
> 
> Is this a bug or a feature ? Don't you think that those who use
> private AS just default out anyway ?

It's a multi-use protocol, so that view is perfectly "valid" for someone, but likely not intended to be globally viewable.

Ideally the vendors along the path would not default advert their full table to someone without an explicit policy configured.  They would also make some of these settings more default.. remove-private should be the default behavior for this new space.

We should make folks be more conservative in their default behaviors here.. I do wish those that still default flood their full table would make that change.  I would attempt to influence them, but they've made it challenging to purchase from them due to other gaps in capability...

- Jared