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

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

Greetings,

Jon pointed me to this draft earlier today so please be kind (for the first 5 minutes after this is delivered in your mailbox.).

After reading the list history back a few months or so on this topic, I must express the same reservation that Randy and Geoff have raised.

I do not feel this is a problem space that needs to be addressed.  Vendors easily disable loop-detection in current running code, and rfc2270 seems to clearly apply in the problem space this is attempting to address.

The issue of ASN collisions were raised, and I feel can be dismissed easily by one party engaging with their local RIR for a nominal "cost of running BGP" threshold.  The recurring annual cost is likely a budgetary "rounding error" and is not a barrier to entry IMHO.

I have other concerns should this move forward that would impact operations.  I will comment on them in private should folks desire.

I do not feel this draft can be supported.

- Jared


On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Tony Li wrote:

> 
> Support.
> 
> Editorial nit: I would find it MUCH more helpful if the constants were also expressed in hex.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:26 PM, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> We have received a request for a working group last call on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00. A URL for the draft is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00
>> 
>> Please send comments to the list by December 14. [*]
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> --John
>> 
>> [*] Unless the world ends on December 12, in which case send them by December 12.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr