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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On 12/2/12 04:18 , Mick O'Rourke wrote:
...
> Perhaps some review of IR membership costs could allow for a better
> middle ground. There is a case for non-support given the
> flat nature of IPv6 Internets\internets as to not seeing this draft move
> ahead. That said could a large enterprise or sp for instance request at
> the present point in time a block of 2000 ASNs?

I'm a little confused and not sure what you are trying to saying here.

If it is that the RIR should revise their policies to allow large blocks 
of ASNs, then I agree.  However, as I said previously the RIR's policies 
are based on the technical recommendations in RFC 1930, requiring 
"unique routing policy".  If we believe this is no longer the criteria 
that should be applied, then we should update the technical 
recommendations within RFC 1930 and I'll bet that the RIR will take that 
into consideration.

As long as RFC 1930 and a "unique routing policy" stands as the 
technical recommendations, I wouldn't expect the RIR's to significantly 
deviate from that.  However, if IDR provided updated technical 
recommendations that entities using RFC 4364 VPNs should use registered 
ASNs per site to facilitate organization mergers and/or provider 
transitions, among other things.  Then I think the RIRs would probably 
update their policies, fairly quickly.

The point is the RIR's are basically following the guidance from this 
technical community, if we think they should do something different at 
the very least we should deprecate RFC 1930 to historic status and tell 
them to no longer consider that as valid guidance.


-- 
================================================
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
================================================