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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

I just had an idea I though I would float.  What if this draft dealt 
exclusively with defining a new larger private range in 4-byte ASN land. 
  It wouldn't have to update RFC 1930 then and it could just stand on 
its own, RFC 1930 could just be a Normative Reference defining Private 
Use ASNs.

Then do another Draft "Special Use ASNs", kind of the ASN equilivant of 
RFC 5735, summarizing all of the special use ASNs with References.  Then 
it could clarify that 65535 is not a Private ASN but a reserved ASN, 
updating RFC 1930 if that is really necessary.

Just a quick list;

0 - Reserved - draft-ietf-idr-as0, RFC 1997 and RFC 6491
23456 - AS_TRANS - RFC 4893
64496-64511 - Documentation (16-bit) - RFC 5398
64512-65534 - Private Use (16-bit) - RFC 1930
65535 - Reserved - RFC 1997
65536-65551 - Documentation (32-bit) - RFC 5398
{new private range} - Private Use (32-bit) - 
draft-mitchell-idr-as-private-reservation
4294967295  - Reserved - Does this have a special use or is it just 
reserved, as all ones?

There are already a non-trivial number of Special Use ASNs or ranges of 
ASNs, enough that having them summarized in a single place would 
probably be helpful. I know I find RFC 5735 useful from time to time.

Like I said, just an idea I thought I would float.

Thanks.

On 7/9/12 15:39 CDT, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:27:00PM -0400, Jon Mitchell wrote:
>> However,
>> since this draft proposes to update RFC 1930, I'm still inclined to
>> "fix" this documentation issue (whether or not vendors choose to strip
>> the last ASN is another matter and I don't believe this stripping
>> behavior has ever been stadarized by IETF anyway), by putting both
>> ranges in the RFC and ending the existing range at 65534 so that IETF
>> and IANA can agree on the private use range.
>
> If the draft ends up solely dealing with instructions to IANA, it'd be fine
> for it to be in there.  It'd simply reflect the current registration of
> 65535 as "reserved".
>
>> Do you think for consistency sake and future possible use to not include
>> the last ASN of the new private use range as well?
>
> This rather depends on where the new private range lies.  In the case of the
> 2-byte space, the last private AS also happened to be the all-1's number.
> If the new private AS range is at the end of the possible range, we'd want
> that.  Note that 2^32-1 is already reserved in the registry.
>
> -- Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================