Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00 concluded, extended to consider ASN range

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 12/20/12 11:04 , Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:47:54AM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 12/19/12 08:57 , Jon Mitchell wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe some others would like to weigh in on one of the above options now
>>> that it's a focused discussion (otherwise I plan to make the small edits
>>> discussed in previous threads and move the start of range to
>>> 42xxxxxxxx so we can close this out...)
>>
>> OK, I'll relent, 4.2B it is.  But, we need to be clear about why we
>> are selecting this; which is to make regexp matching of private use
>> ASNs easier.
>>
>> The idea is to allow the simple regexp of 42???????? to match
>> private use ASNs.  However, this makes a few assumptions.
>>
>> 1. While not part of the Private Use ASN range, the intended regexp
>> also matches the reserved ASN 4294967295, and therefore 4294967295
>> can never be a valid ASN in an AS_PATH.
>
> 	I think this poses the need to have vendors replace regex
> with something where you can specify a list or range of the integers
> you wish to match.
>
> 	I have wanted to tie prefix to the integer string encoded in AS_PATH
> for some time and there is no effective way to do this.

If we had something like that, we wouldn't care about 4.2B, which was my 
point along time ago about this being "CLI/Config semantics issue and 
not a standards or allocation issue".

But, we're deciding to make the special allocation to suite this issue, 
I'm fine with that.  We just have to be explicit about the issues this 
choice creates.  There is no perfect answer here.

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================