IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
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 EBCB421F8C32 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:24:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1yLWwfMrO6v8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:24:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE2B21F8C35 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:24:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 2001-44b8-1121-1a00-3448-34ba-4195-613f.static.ipv6.internode.on.net (2001-44b8-1121-1a00-3448-34ba-4195-613f.static.ipv6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:1121:1a00:3448:34ba:4195:613f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AD6B6745; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:24:15 +1000 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+b+ERm0a36YuiVMqvdMnMyLEjet-=emaowGJJQMQgx3pEzo_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:24:14 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
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 20:24:22 -0000

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

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status