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

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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.

Is this perhaps related to folks being afraid that some providers may
offer a "SIDR free peering" for a little more value add ?

I still support the draft to proceed to RFC.

Cheers,
R.

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Tony Tauber <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> A long-time public hater of "private" namespaces (trans: "Hey, I can do
> whatever I want!"), I oppose this draft.
>
> As usual, my reasons are the inevitable clashes during mergers and some
> other silo in the company wanting to bring their junk out the Lab and play
> right with Production.  (Why Production is using private name/number spaces
> is not something I can quash on my own, unfortunately.)
>
> Tony
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>