Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:47:38 -0500

Idr 

Draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01 document has passed WG LC, and will be
forwarded to the Routing AD. 

Thank you,

Sue Hares
IDR co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:49 PM
To: 'Jon Mitchell'
Cc: 'idr wg'; 'John G. Scudder'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

Jon:

Unless we hear otherwise, we'll leave it at informational.  I'm still
awaiting Stewart Bryant's response as the responsible AD.

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jon Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:37 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email-masked]; 'John G. Scudder'; 'idr wg'
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

On 13/01/14 20:58 -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Jakob:
> 
> Yes, I agree 100% Jakob.  Standard assignment of AS numbers can be 
> approached either way.
> 
> Standards: 
> Look, we are assigning these AS numbers. If you want to play in the 
> Internet
> - pay attention (standard) because standard implementation will use it.  
> 
> Informational: 
> What 2 bgp peers do in the privacy of their own private ASes, is the 
> business of the two AS administrations.  For the DC BGP, this can 
> still work.
> 
> So... arguments can balance either way.   

To throw another option on the table - BCP (6 specifically), which is where
RFC 6996 ended up.  This is a primarily a reservation of space draft with a
recommendation to operators on (non-)use of that space.

-Jon

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr