Subject: [Idr] draft-huston-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt as IDR WG document

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:08:48 -0700

Folks,

Please send your comments on the attached. The deadline for comments
is Sep 25, 2008.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:49:58 +1000
From:    Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
cc:      Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Draft on a proposal for an IANA reservation AS Numbers for documentati
	  on purposes

There have been calls of late to reserve a block of AS numbers for  
documentation purposes. This topic was raised as part of a policy  
proposal in the APNIC region. (echoing a similar call for an Ipv6  
documentation prefix some years ago that was subsequently undertaken  
as an IANA action as part of the IETF publishing RFC 3849).

It appears appropriate to me that any such reservation of AS Numbers  
for documentation purposes be undertaken as an IANA reservation in the  
AS Number Registry. For this to be undertaken I understand that there  
needs to be a published RFC with an IANA Considerations section that  
details the proposed IANA action. I have drafted a document that calls  
for such a AS reservation in the AS Number Registry: draft-huston-as- 
documentation-reservation-00.txt. I would like to request that the IDR  
WG consider this draft for adoption as a WG document.

Regards

Geoff Huston

------- End of Forwarded Message

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

---

From: "Cayle Spandon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:10:25 -0400

Sounds like a terrific idea. We shouldn't need more than a handful
(5?) of AS numbers for this. Maybe allocate a few from the 2-octet
space and a few more from the 4-octet space?

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:22:20 -0400

> Please send your comments on the attached. The deadline for comments

I support this document.

Specific comments on it follow:
- Given the author, an example in "asdot" notation is surprising.  I'd
  suggest removing it.
- To drive the point strongly home about 32 bit ASes, I'd suggest moving
  the 32-bit reserved range to the top rather than the bottom of the
  range after 65535.  This somewhat begs whether we should also reserve
  some 32 bit AS numbers for private use as well and whether that should
  similarly go to the top of the range.

-- Jeff

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:30:56 +1000

Yes indeed Cayle, thats a good suggestion. The draft suggests in the  
IANA Considerations to reserve 16 from the 16-bit number space (just  
below the private use block) and 16 from the 32-bit only space (from  
the currently reserved block immediately above the 16-bit space)

The suggestion of 2 x 16 AS number blocks comes from the APNIC  
proposal, acknowledged in the draft. The suggestion of the specific  
numbers to reserve is my fault!

  Geoff

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:47:59 +1000

> - Given the author, an example in "asdot" notation is surprising.  I'd

The only place you'll find the use of both asplain and asdot is in the  
IANA
Considerations in the paragraph starting with: "Note to IANA, not for  
publication:"

I'll use asplain exclusively only when the as notation draft has made  
it through the
IESG - until then its still a suggestion to the IETF.

>  range after 65535.

I looked at the IANA AS Number registry and saw that the block of 1024  
numbers
immediately following 65535 was reserved by the IANA for no particular  
reason.

In thinking about documentation examples I was sort of put off by  
having documentation
with AS numbers of 4135613205 and 4135613211 and thought that 65539and  
65546
might be a little more friendly

However please ntoe that the draft does not stipulate what the IANA  
MUST do - it
is a little more gentle in saying that IANA may wish to consider...  
and the draft
leaves the choice of what numbers to reserve to the IANA, which I  
thought was
appropriate under the circumstances.

>  This somewhat begs whether we should also reserve

I heard some years back of a single project that thought that it may  
want in
excess of 2,000 private use AS numbers. However it appears that the  
project went
nowhere and I've not heard of anyone wanting such a large pool of  
private use
numbers since. It would be good, in my opinion, to understand the type  
of requirement
for such an expanded need for private use AS numbers.

   Geoff

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:52:33 -0400

On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
> having documentation with AS numbers of 4135613205 and 4135613211  
> and thought that 65539and  65546 might be a little more friendly

Point taken, though 70000+ might be a little more recognizable at a  
glance as coming from the 32-bit space.

--John

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:08:57 +1000

> glance as coming from the 32-bit space.

ah - the joys of trying to do base 2 arithmetic on base 10 numbers!  
You could be right, assuming that we choose to use integer decimal  
notation, but, on the other hand, if we were to use hex notation for  
AS numbers instead of decimal ... :-)

By the way John, to assist Yakov in his role as WG chair, do you  
support the adoption of this draft as an IDR WG document?

   Geoff

---

From: Michael Lambert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:08:50 -0400

On 11 Sep 2008, at 17:47, Geoff Huston wrote:

> and thought
> that 65539 and 65546 might be a little more friendly

Given that there are implementations of both asdot and asplain in the  
wild, would it make sense to write the former pair as "4135613205  
(63104.29461) and 4135613211 (63104.29467)" and the latter as "65539  
(1.3) and 65546 (1.10)"?  I don't think it obfuscates anything and it  
allows for the case in which neither AS notation draft makes it  
through the IESG.

Michael

---

From: David Woodgate <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:59:53 +1000

I support the adoption of this document.

I would suggest though that any reservation of 32-byte AS numbers by 
IANA for this purpose should use no more than 6 digits (i.e. the 
relevant ASs should be <= 999999), on the basis that 6 digits (or 
fewer) will be visually consistent with the expected allocation of AS 
numbers for a long time to come.

Regards,

				David Woodgate