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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

I think this is yet one more case where the "Internet BGP" is trying
to fight with "Private_Use of BGP".

There are multiple applications BGP can serve and we have single
protocol and single resource pool of ASes used by that protocol. Leave
alone types of communities, attributes etc ...

Internet folks will say "Do not trash our environment"

Applications and services folks will say "We just find BGP useful to
our application, why not use it - we have nothing in common with big
I"

On that basis I see no harm in allowing some bigger AS space for personal use.

In fact I just looked at various RIR policies (some of them written by
Geoff ;) which say that given LIR can get only single AS number
allocation - even for experiments. Moreover RIRs get 1K AS pools from
IANA and there are clear rules where the subsequent pool can be
requested.

Yes Jared is right that RFC2270 or similar techniques can be used. In
fact I spoke with John offline today about one of such cases where
private as just get's stripped immediately. But those ideas are just
moving the issue and not really solving it - making the internal
network troubleshooting more complex.

Regards,
R.

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jared Mauch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jon pointed me to this draft earlier today so please be kind (for the first 5 minutes after this is delivered in your mailbox.).
>
> After reading the list history back a few months or so on this topic, I must express the same reservation that Randy and Geoff have raised.
>
> I do not feel this is a problem space that needs to be addressed.  Vendors easily disable loop-detection in current running code, and rfc2270 seems to clearly apply in the problem space this is attempting to address.
>
> The issue of ASN collisions were raised, and I feel can be dismissed easily by one party engaging with their local RIR for a nominal "cost of running BGP" threshold.  The recurring annual cost is likely a budgetary "rounding error" and is not a barrier to entry IMHO.
>
> I have other concerns should this move forward that would impact operations.  I will comment on them in private should folks desire.
>
> I do not feel this draft can be supported.
>
> - Jared
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Tony Li wrote:
>
>>
>> Support.
>>
>> Editorial nit: I would find it MUCH more helpful if the constants were also expressed in hex.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:26 PM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> We have received a request for a working group last call on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00. A URL for the draft is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
>>>
>>> Please send comments to the list by December 14. [*]
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --John
>>>
>>> [*] Unless the world ends on December 12, in which case send them by December 12.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr