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

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

Come on guys,

I think the proposed range is more than reasonable, 4,278,190,080 to 
4,294,967,294. Yes, the start and end of the range are not really that 
human or decimal friendly.  But, within that you have a range of 10 
million ASNs that are relatively human and decimal friendly, 
4,280,000,000 to 4,289,999,999.

And, if some how that isn't enough, you can pickup another 5 million 
ASNs with two other adjacent ranges that are only a little less human 
and decimal friendly, 4,279,000,000 to 4,279,999,999 and 
4,290,000,000,000 to 4,294,999,9999.

Something more than 16 million ASNs is way more than enough, reserving 
300 million or more ASNs, just to start the range at the 4 billion point 
is just crazy.

Get over it.

On 12/11/12 13:40 , Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 19:20, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>> Based on number of use cases it seems to me like perhaps we should
>> just declare the top most bit in 4 octet AS space as indicator of
>> private vs public.
>
> Excuse me if this sounds atrociously naive, but putting my operator hat on:
>
> - i'm human and regularly need to parse asns in as-paths
>
> - i don't naturally count in binary
>
> - i would really like a set of numbers which I can easily see are private
> or public.  Decimal alignment would work nicely, both for me and the NOC
> staff that are going to be dealing with these numbers on a daily basis.
>
> - looking at 4278190079 and 4278190080, I simply cannot tell which might be
> public and which might be private.  This will cause leakage because it will
> not be obvious on sight to an operator looking at a bgp aspath whether the
> range should be propagated or not #operatorfail
>
> - unless something drastic has changed recently, I'm not aware of any plans
> to assign bitwise masks to ASNs.  Consequently bitwise alignment for a
> private ASN range is a purely arbitrary construction
>
> - please change to using a decimal-aligned range.  it would make my life
> and the lives of many operators a little easier.  I suggest 4000000000 or
> maybe 4200000000, or something else.  Not 4278190080, because that number
> means nothing to me
>
> - otherwise, I love the idea of this draft.  Please let us have private
> ASNs and lots of them.  There are plenty of them to spare in the can.
>
> thanks,
> Nick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [e-mail]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================