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

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:35:42AM +0100, Martin Millnert wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 22:44 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > On 15/12/2012 01:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > > (and I sure hope I'm not the poor sod who gets allocated 4200000 or 42000000 or 420000000??? :-P )
> > 
> > or anything in the range between 420000 -> 429999.  This falls bang in the
> > middle of the likely range that will be assigned to ARIN.  Let me hold my
> > nose for a moment and use asdot format:  as420000 == 6.26784, and I can see
> > this asn being assigned in the foreseeable future in the ARIN service region.
> > 
> > 900000-999999 seems to be well outside the range of any of the current RIRs
> > (using current allocation techniques, there could be 6 more RIRs before
> > there would be any interference).
> 
> This is a very valid point; operational simplicity let's youtube stay
> reachable at night.

We just were worrying about someone dropping 3 digits from the number
and having a conflict, and now we drop or typo one and we are in the
middle of space currently in use or soon to be assigned... hmmm, failing
to see the validity of some of the arguments being made here.  Also -
the one impacted due to a mis-configuration of the number of their
private ASN is only themselves... 

> A more clear motivation of why 100000 private ASNs would be insufficient
> would be interesting to read.
> 

The motivation of the draft is over 1K ASN's, various folks have
suggested their needs ranged in the 10K numbers today.  The motivation
for going beyond this is only not having to do this again (this has been
repeated in the threads).  The criteria for reasonable in my mind should
be not consuming a large portion of the addressable space for private
ASNs.  I think the current draft and new proposal Warrend made still
meet these criteria.

Jon