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

[Jeff Wheeler <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM, David Farmer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Also, even if we revise RFC 1930 and/or the RIR's revise their policies, to
> easily allow large publicly registered ASN blocks; There is a perception

I have read that argument a few times.  I don't think it would be wise
to try to invent RIR policy for handing out potentially large blocks
of ASNs to orgs without a lot of specific debate about what uses are
"acceptable" and what aren't, which will ultimately result in RIR
policy that does one of two things:

* limits applications by making it hard to get huge ranges

* makes it easy to get huge ranges, so everyone will ask for a huge
one, and then we will face a 32-bit ASN depletion problem, and decide
to revise the policy, but there will be a bunch of early-adopters who
have these gigantic blocks; and then a huge block of private ASNs will
be created ANYWAY as a half-way measure to "level the playing field"
and avoid squatting

My view is that changing RIR policy to address this is quite stupid,
and it is unrealistic to think that the RIR membership would be stupid
enough to do it without first saying, "why isn't the private ASN space
expanded?"

There are some reasons why you may want unique public ASNs instead of
private, re-usable ASNs inside of service provider L3VPNs but only if
you can convince your customers to actually utilize them, and then
hand-hold your customers through requesting those blocks so they can
be assigned to sites.

Randy has plenty of history trying to force his view of what is
"optimal" to become the only possible option, instead of offering
choices and flexibility.  RIRs can still decide to give big ASN blocks
out if their memberships want that, whether the private ASN range is
expanded or not.  In fact, proposing to RIR membership that a private
resource is being exhausted thus it must be made easier to acquire
public resources for private uses, is not a smart way to convince RIR
members to vote in favor of that proposal.

$0.02.
-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts