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

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 20:29 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 9F7D021F8C18 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 wNeKGJNDBsfi for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA3121F8C14 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c13so16573839ieb.31 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:04 -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=zccZsV47rcVk+N9tjHgpir+izIUZ0qQkivPOPFUH6M8=; b=fkkOa8lXy4CWtTRq6nzIQYFm2tNFf4KEQmdXrgzIWbOYJRxtsek1lXXz4gqA5gjQj0 GnarC1SwrM96FtkFIEx/NIa169Lh7NNCTVkGxPCJ5l5D6dg2mj6m2ySrAgcmUPab94Y/ GlcFnZPkTY+KuTjr4KjIrgB4MY/YVG+EQxjr5cl/WmWz6bWi4Ps46b+OcJev6SqJQRPt Xp+7gRXH1v4WPxGg1Chjw/ppemwdaEXy+9jcAr16ocElL4HmDgGN+hlzJrlML45JWVMW NescTsP86gWKm/xpByAU/T8W3B5RCf05szd4AzsTsxSIkdKEQLnFDJBCJifowGIOD/FQ 9z+g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.57.133 with SMTP id i5mr23822606igq.67.1354220944670; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.64.135.100 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:29:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4145B9A4-56D2-4DEB-9583-F86F7E73BD77@apnic.net>
References: <B6B72499-E9D0-4281-84EB-6CA53694866E@juniper.net> <2CDB688B-9C24-4AF5-8900-20A88211AC54@apnic.net> <1AF020BC-65F1-4484-AAAD-355A294A7692@kumari.net> <CEEF8969-16D0-42B9-A093-F058E5D1848F@apnic.net> <574CC47E-4BF6-4749-8B44-CFA526ECDFD6@tony.li> <135D3112-A4CB-4B88-AD4A-5A34706566C5@apnic.net> <CA+b+ERm0a36YuiVMqvdMnMyLEjet-=emaowGJJQMQgx3pEzo_w@mail.gmail.com> <4145B9A4-56D2-4DEB-9583-F86F7E73BD77@apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:29:04 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3fw4jDZI1ntnMLJnJ7NVN0O2aX4
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERkr9qXVsJBj6Ha7-hRSFFQTgZ9J24L5c+rYLEcEzsqspw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
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: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:29:05 -0000

Hi Geoff,

It is not about uniqueness or not. It is about uniqueness within a
scope .. here scope being private network.

If that would not be useful we would not have 2 octet private AS range
nor RFC1918 and I think from personal experience that the last two
serve very well for what they were designed.

Cheers,
R.

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> On 30/11/2012, at 7:14 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Geoff,
>>
>> So let me ask a very simple question in light of Brian's point ..
>>
>> Is it better for someone privately to just pick random 100K of ASes
>> from 4 octet block and apply to his private needs or is it better if
>> such pool is well known ?
>
>>
>> Who is going to stop Jon or Kevin or Sasha to do the former ? Internet-CIA ???
>
>
> (I love false dichotomies!)
>
> Of course when presented with this kind of either/or argument then the
> obvious answer is "neither".
>
> If uniqueness is important then use a registry system that provides
> uniqueness of assigned/allocated code points.
>
> If uniqueness is unimportant then use the same code point, because, well,
> uniqueness was not important was it.
>
> Did I say already that I was opposed to the progress of this draft from
> WG Last Call to the IESG?
>
> Geoff
>