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

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

Russ -

I agree with this view, however this was already my intention and I
believe how the draft reads today.  There is very little text overall
and none that purports to be a use case for the new range in the draft.
There is a brief introduction that mentions that BGP use in lot of
applications has expanded, some may have interpeted this to be a use
case but it sure doesn't try to provide any guidance on it nor in the
subsequent text.  I volunteered to remove the last sentence of the first
paragraph in case it was being misinterpeted in this fashion... but
unless people have some other *specific* wording changes besides that
(that stay away from getting into more specific use cases, for instance
about large DCs), I don't plan to make any further changes to the draft.

Jon

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:26:03PM -0500, Russ White wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> Lets steer away from the justifications in a draft, as they might well change over the next 5 years anyway. The justification seems well supported o list, so make the draft simple...
> 
> :-)
> 
> Russ
> 
> <><
> [e-mail]
> [e-mail]
> 
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > All,
> > 
> > I think Jon should remove any use case examples from the draft as
> > there is no way one could enforce that the new range will _only_ be
> > used in those use cases.
> > 
> > I think Jon in fact already said it very clearly that the point of the
> > draft is to get IANA registration. That' it - no more no less.
> > 
> > It would be up to individual operators to use such new range in L3VPNs
> > as Shane points out, in DCs or for that matter in ISPs.
> > 
> > Also it seems that it could be useful for dynamically routed home
> > gateways and in that respect I think the current range may be in fact
> > too small so I am sympathetic to broaden this space. If this is bit
> > boundary aligned or human aligned I think is secondary .. I have no
> > personal preference.
> > 
> > Many thx,
> > R.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> 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.
> >> 
> >>  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
> >> [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