Re: [Idr] new ID on expansion of private use ASN range

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> A good case can be made for either in my opinion, but the IDR WG chairs
> were OK with it being worked here.  I can definitely send it also to
> GROW list for comment either before or after it becomes a WG document,
> or whatever makes the IDR WG chairs most comfortable.  GROW WG chairs
> are aware of it already...

it's probably worthwhile (as a co-chair in GROW) to come clean about this bit:
Jon asked both chair groups, we debated and mr scudder leaped.

As to the whole idea, I think that jon puts forth some valid arguments
for making more private-asns, though I fear the tomfoolery in code
that already exists for special case thiings (private-asn,
private-ip/ULA, accept-own-as, etc...ick)

I'd like to see a good discussion on 'why not just get public asns for
all this sort of stuff'
If there never were private-asns, if asns were as plentiful as rain,
why NOT just use them instead? What would be required to go on as we
want, without making making more private-asns?

-chris