Re: [Idr] new ID on expansion of private use ASN range

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:27:00PM -0400, Jon Mitchell wrote:
> However,
> since this draft proposes to update RFC 1930, I'm still inclined to
> "fix" this documentation issue (whether or not vendors choose to strip
> the last ASN is another matter and I don't believe this stripping
> behavior has ever been stadarized by IETF anyway), by putting both
> ranges in the RFC and ending the existing range at 65534 so that IETF
> and IANA can agree on the private use range.

If the draft ends up solely dealing with instructions to IANA, it'd be fine
for it to be in there.  It'd simply reflect the current registration of
65535 as "reserved".

> Do you think for consistency sake and future possible use to not include
> the last ASN of the new private use range as well?

This rather depends on where the new private range lies.  In the case of the
2-byte space, the last private AS also happened to be the all-1's number.
If the new private AS range is at the end of the possible range, we'd want
that.  Note that 2^32-1 is already reserved in the registry.

-- Jeff