IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net> Tue, 11 December 2012 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <shane@castlepoint.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 1292021F856B for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:55:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 JsC6iTL4gAxe for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4226121F8568 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24990300036 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mbp.castlepoint.net (174-29-211-99.hlrn.qwest.net [174.29.211.99]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D5E3300035; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:55:45 -0700 (MST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2d2yh32cw.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:55:42 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0242C631-5898-46DB-B325-8118D56C2F60@castlepoint.net>
References: <CA+b+ERnuWZ+r2O-eFhe3hU00uoU4UKnRcbhLNVXU7p5+DjoWbQ@mail.gmail.com> <C6C16AE3B7961044B04A1BCEC6E2F93603D12A0C@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com> <20121210225858.GC24937@puck.nether.net> <m2d2yh32cw.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent
X-DSPAM-Processed: Mon Dec 10 23:55:46 2012
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9809 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 50c6d8f2199637057511983
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, Idr+ietf, 0.01000, Subject*Re+#+WGLC, 0.01000, the+#+#+#+to, 0.01000, mailing+list, 0.01000, Idr+#+#+https, 0.01000, Subject*Idr+WGLC, 0.01000, 2012+at, 0.01000, Subject*on+draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00, 0.01000, at+#+#+PM, 0.01000, and+#+the, 0.01000, list+#+ietf, 0.01000, mailing+#+#+ietf, 0.01000, Url*org/mailman/listinfo/idr, 0.01000, On+Dec, 0.01000, Subject*Idr+#+#+draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00, 0.01000, list+Idr, 0.01000, Cc*idr+ietf.org, 0.01000, Randy+Bush, 0.01000, mailing+#+Idr, 0.01000, Idr+#+list, 0.01000, the+#+#+of, 0.01000, Dec+#+#+at, 0.01000, Dec+#+2012, 0.01000, Url*www, 0.01000, Subject*Re+#+#+on, 0.01000, the+#+of, 0.01000, in+the, 0.01000
Cc: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:55:48 -0000

On Dec 10, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> this misses my point entirely.  we know not to announce private ASs.
> 
> my point was
> 
>  o i do not accept the use example in the draft as justification
>    for an allocation of more private ASs.  in fact, i object to
>    it and specifically object to the draft being advanced.  we do
>    this already without your requested allocation which then can
>    only be viewed as an end-run around the IR system.

May I ask how you are 100% confident that there are 0 deployments of IPVPN's, today, that have no need for more than 1,023 private ASN's (64,512 - 65,535)?  And, while I'm here, may I also ask why you believe it better that operators be forced to _continue_ to play games with 'as-override'[1] and/or 'loops'[2] to overwrite and ignore, (respectively), duplicative private ASN's in the AS_PATH in such large IPVPN's, breaking BGP's fundamental loop detection mechanism, due to the limited space of private ASN's, ultimately making troubleshooting for said operators more complicated?  (Oh, and increasing the complexity of the BGP codebase, associated regression test cases run by vendors & operators, etc.)?

-shane

[1] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/as-override-edit-protocols-bgp.html
[2] http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos10.2/topics/reference/configuration-statement/local-as-edit-protocols-bgp.html


>  o i can see tli's point about use in large datacenter deployments.
>    if the draft is changed to use that (or a similar real need) as
>    the motivation, i would reconsider my objection.
> 
> apologies, but i do not know how to be more clear.
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

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