Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-heitz-idr-large-community; one week to comment on early code point allocation

[heasley <[e-mail]>]

Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:31:45AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas:
> > Going back to my earlier question, reserving 65535:*:*, just because it
> > was a meaningful value in rfc1997, does not make a whole lot of sense.
> > 65535 was picked in rfc1997 because it was the highest value, we can
> > apply the same logic with Large.
> 
> I tend to agree.  This piece of the conversation mostly needs harmonization with "what do we do or don't do about automatically mapping 1997 into -large".  I'm agnostic on that point.
> 
> > 
> > Note: i propose just to reserve these two ranges, I don't see an
> > immediate need to open a registry given that we already have rfc1997
> > WKC.
> 
> I concur, modulo the above.

I would reserve 65535:*:*, simply because it, like 0, is a reserved ASN and
if, in the future, there is a desire to create feature parity with rfc1997,
its been reserved.  I suppose all-1s could be used for well-knowns as well.