Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-07
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Brian Haberman)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-05-28)
Unknown
Minor suggested revision: OLD: "Operators SHOULD filter Last ASNs within the AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes." NEW: "Operators SHOULD filter routes with Last ASNs in the AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes." Does that accurately capture your intent? As I read the original sentence, it sounds like you would remove those ASNs from the path, which seems bad.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-27)
Unknown
As noted by Gunter V. in his OPS Directorate review, and answered by Jeff Haas > 5. Implementation Consideration > > <>Start<> > However, implementations MAY generate a local warning message indicating improper use of a reserved ASN. > <>end<> > > I think that for operational simplicity this should be a stronger recommendation SHOULD, because if they are used, then the intended network architecture will breack somewhere… For internal routing, this is generally true. For stuff you’re getting off the Internet, you may not care and will simply discard that reachability. Making this too chatty may not be a good idea. Benoit: Maybe the solution is to make the distinction between internal routing (SHOULD) and external (MAY).
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-05-27)
Unknown
Maybe this is just me not understanding, and it may not matter if the whole point is to ask IANA to do these reservations, but in this text: 3. Reasons for Last ASNs Reservation A subset of the BGP communities of ASN 65535, the last ASN of the 16 bit range, are reserved for use by Well-known communities as described in [RFC1997] and [IANA.WK]. Although this is not currently true of ASN 4294967295, if there is a future need for another Special Use ASN that is not designed to be globally routable, or the associated BGP communities of such an ASN, ASN 4294967295 could be a valid candidate for such purpose. This document does not prescribe any such Special Use to this ASN at the time of publication. I'm not seeing anything that looks like a clearly stated reason for the reservations. If everyone else thinks that's a reason, please carry on :D
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown