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

[Tony Tauber <[e-mail]>]

Not at all what I had in mind.  What I had in mind was a situation where a
carrier is using a separate ASN for every one of thousands of some type of
site or customer (because there are so many private ASNs, don't worry!)
Then they have policies which say "when a route comes with such and such an
origin AS, do something or other".  Of course, stripping the private AS
internally will break such policy logic.

Then they acquire another carrier whose clever engineers had the same type
of thinking and now the presumption of uniqueness w/in their deployment
scope is broken.  Sometimes such things can be aided by clever use of
hack-y vendor features (unless remove-private-as is part of the BGP
standard); sometimes not.

That problem was the one I was trying to articulate.

The problem that Jay seemed to have in mind of backward compatibility and
semantics of what is considered a private AS is different (and something I
hadn't considered, so glad he mentioned it.)

Tony

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
>
> I think both Tony and Jay forgot that routing and reachability is not
> about originator AS .. it is about prefixes they advertise.
>
> If peering ISP AS chooses to peer with private as or remove private as
> from AS-PATH or for completeness substitute with their own it is all
> ok. He takes responsibility to route data to such customer(s).
>
> Any subsequent removal of private as in the path also results in the
> same responsibility of the provider who permits private AS for
> peering.
>
> I am not sure why there is concern with it on the list.
>