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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Chris,

Do you expect that folks will use the new space as soon as it is out
of RFC editor ? Is there such huge demand for it among ISPs or
DSL/FTTH/CABLE operators ;) ?

And if so do you really assume those who will use it are so stupid
that they would leak those ? I think 4 octet AS itself is not that
widely deployed yet. Yes I saw your mail on few two octet private as
leaked.

And if those are leaked do you think transits should just blindly
remove those and replace those private ASes with their own AS ? Note
last time I checked it is not easy to remove private-as from AS_PATH
other then replacing it with your own when the UPDATE crossed few
hops.

rgs,
r.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 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 ....
>
> to rephrase, I think Robert is asking: "Would you not just ask your
> vendor to include a macro like: 'PrivateASNGroup' to match on in
> routing policy language?"
>
> seems reasonable... except that my SFO router may not get upgraded at
> the same as my NYC router, nevermind fast-mover Nick over there who's
> always happy to load nightly code on his elbonian routers... so do we
> have to delay usage of this new shiny space until reasonably close to
> all public bgp speakers upgrade? Or build a mechanism like AS4
> required for as2 only realms stuck in the middle of the AS4 world?