Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers
RFC 7300

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Comment (2014-05-28)
No email
send info
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.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2014-05-27)
No email
send info
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).

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2014-05-27)
No email
send info
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) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection