IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4AD21F8C12 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:34:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_RAND_6=2, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EpLzN165v4C0 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6397521F8C11 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKULfG18kjnZkpKVmrBUG2cN2TkUpjIXII@postini.com; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:34:32 PST
Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:32:47 -0800
Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:32:47 -0800
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.11) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:35:29 -0800
Received: from mail41-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.236) by VA3EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.7.40.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:45 +0000
Received: from mail41-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626B53C02AC for <idr@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:132.245.2.21; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BN1PRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: 1
X-BigFish: PS1(zz98dI9371Izz1de0h1202h1d1ah1d2ah1082kzz8275chz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25he5bhf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah139eh13b6h1441h14ddh1504h1537h162dh1631h1662h1155h)
Received: from mail41-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail41-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1354221163196322_17768; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.235]) by mail41-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137676015F; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BN1PRD0512HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (132.245.2.21) by VA3EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (10.7.99.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:37 +0000
Received: from rakeshc-sslvpn-nc.jnpr.net (66.129.224.36) by pod51010.outlook.com (10.255.193.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.245.2; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:32:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <4145B9A4-56D2-4DEB-9583-F86F7E73BD77@apnic.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:32:32 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <09EBCED0-1234-4291-B03D-7BE68C572E48@juniper.net>
References: <B6B72499-E9D0-4281-84EB-6CA53694866E@juniper.net> <2CDB688B-9C24-4AF5-8900-20A88211AC54@apnic.net> <1AF020BC-65F1-4484-AAAD-355A294A7692@kumari.net> <CEEF8969-16D0-42B9-A093-F058E5D1848F@apnic.net> <574CC47E-4BF6-4749-8B44-CFA526ECDFD6@tony.li> <135D3112-A4CB-4B88-AD4A-5A34706566C5@apnic.net> <CA+b+ERm0a36YuiVMqvdMnMyLEjet-=emaowGJJQMQgx3pEzo_w@mail.gmail.com> <4145B9A4-56D2-4DEB-9583-F86F7E73BD77@apnic.net>
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Originating-IP: [66.129.224.36]
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%TONY.LI$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%APNIC.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%RASZUK.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net
Cc: "idr@ietf. org" <idr@ietf.org>, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:34:34 -0000

On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

> If uniqueness is important then use a registry system that provides
> uniqueness of assigned/allocated code points. 

Uniqueness within a scope is important. Speaking of false dichotomies, you seem to be suggesting that the only way to have uniqueness is by RIR allocation. This is of course not the case, any (ahem) well-run enterprise can manage their own number resources internally.

Global uniqueness helps when you merge scopes, but that's a well-understood issue.

> If uniqueness is unimportant then use the same code point, because, well, 
> uniqueness was not important was it.

Do you think we should revise RFC 1930 to withdraw the existing private AS space?

> Did I say already that I was opposed to the progress of this draft from
> WG Last Call to the IESG? 

You did. Duly noted. It would be fine with me to take that part as read from now on.

--John

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status