Subject: [GROW] Note about an IDR draft: draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:11:54 -0500

Grow folk,
the IDR wg is spinning through the subject draft:

  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation/>

The abstract is:
Abstract

   This document reserves two Autonomous System numbers (ASNs) at the
   end of the 16 bit and 32 bit ranges, described in this document as
   "Last ASNs" and provides guidance to implementers and operators on
   their use.

and the intro talks a bit more about the reasoning for the doc:
1.  Introduction

   IANA has reserved the last Autonomous System Number (ASN), 65535, of
   the 16 bit autonomous system number range for over a decade with the
   intention that it not be used by network operators running BGP
   [RFC4271].  Since the introduction of BGP Support for Four-Octet AS
   Number Space [RFC6793], IANA has also reserved the ASN of the 32 bit
   autonomous system number range, 4294967295.  This reservation has
   been documented in the IANA Autonomous System Numbers Registry
   [IANA.AS].  Although these "Last ASNs" border on Private Use ASN
   [RFC6996] ranges, they are not defined or reserved as Private Use
   ASNs by [IANA.AS].  This document describes the reasoning for
   reserving these Last ASNs and provides guidance both to operators and
   to implementers on their use.

it'd would be worth our time to read and comment on the IDR list, if
there are comments, or speak up in support of the document (or
non-support even) when the time comes for WGLC.

thanks!
-chris

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:40:47 -0500

>    "Last ASNs" and provides guidance to implementers and operators on

FWIW, the authors consider this a "janitorial" document.  65535 is already
effectively reserved but wasn't documented that way.  4294967295 isn't
reserved but having a reserved magic value has proven an invaluable tool in
code point allocation over the years.

We hope the document is not controversial.

-- Jeff