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

[Edward Crabbe <[e-mail]>]

+1

Acquisitions, ASN merges etc may all involve use of private ASN space
between consenting parties.  I think this is a SHOULD.


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 20/12/2012 22:38, Jon Mitchell wrote:
> > I'm comfortable making the change to a capital MUST for this sentence
> > and adding the appropriate reference to RFC 2119 as necessary.  I'm just
> > not comfortable telling operators how to perform that action as there
> > are a number of options to do so, which was my point to David (and he
> > seemed to be ok with).  I will make the changes as necessary to the
> > abstract where this statement exists as well.
>
> If it's of interest, rfc 6666 ran into much the same issue recently with
> the issue of leaking the rtbh prefix to ebgp peers.  We decided on SHOULD
> rather than MUST because there probably were situations where there might
> be valid operational reasons for leaking the prefix to a peer. I would
> think the same arguments hold for a private ASN range.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6666#section-5
>
> Nick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>