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

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:14:00 -0500

[re-sending - so web-site indexing works] 

This is to start a 2 week last call on 

Reservation of Last Autonomous System (AS) Numbers

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

This working group last all we start today and go to 1/27/14.  

We look forward to active discussion.  Email should include:

Support: yes/no

Thank you,

Sue and John

Co-chairs

---

From: "Dickson, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:34:11 +0000

Support: yes

Brian

From: Susan Hares <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:14 PM
To: 'idr wg' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "'John G. Scudder'" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

[re-sending – so web-site indexing works]

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:39:58 -0600

I support last call, even without fixing the following nit.

After rereading the Draft I have one small nit, Section 4, second 
paragraph, second sentence, says;

    Operators that choose to do inbound filtering of Private Use ASNs
    within the AS_PATH and AS4_PATH attributes SHOULD also filter these
    Last ASNs.

Why limit this statement to inbound filtering?  Isn't the statement 
equally valid for outbound filtering?  I think having "inbound" in the 
sentence is overly specific.  I suggest removing "inbound" from the 
sentence, leaving something like this;

    Operators that choose to filter Private Use ASNs within the AS_PATH
    and AS4_PATH attributes SHOULD also filter these Last ASNs.

However, if you are trying to emphasize or recommend inbound filtering, 
please rewrite this so it doesn't also seem to imply that outbound 
filtering is excluded.

Thanks

On 1/13/14, 14:14 , Susan Hares wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:42:35 +0000

Yes/support

Cheers,
Jeff

Date: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:14 PM

---

From: Jakob Heitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:47:22 +0000

Support: yes.

I think intended status should be standards track, not informational, because RFC2119 language is used.

Thanks,
Jakob.

From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 12:14 PM
To: 'idr wg'
Cc: 'John G. Scudder'; [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:53:32 -0500

On 13/01/14 15:39 -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> equally valid for outbound filtering?  I think having "inbound" in
> the sentence is overly specific.  I suggest removing "inbound" from
> the sentence, leaving something like this;
> 
> However, if you are trying to emphasize or recommend inbound
> filtering, please rewrite this so it doesn't also seem to imply that
> outbound filtering is excluded.
> 

David -

I thought it would be covered by sentence before that:

"These last ASNs MUST NOT be advertised to the global Internet within
AS_PATH or AS4_PATH attributes."

However, there could be places in their network (not connected to the
Internet) where operators do this egress filtering on the AS_PATH and
therefore I see no reason to not remove the word you suggest.

Cheers,

Jon

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:33:07 +0900

in abstract

> IANA has also reserved the ASN of the
                            ^ last

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:34:29 +0900

> because RFC2119 language is used.

not arguing for or against info, but noting that 2119 is often used in
info docs.  i.e. it is not a reason to choose.

randy

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:36:34 -0500

> > IANA has also reserved the ASN of the

Intro I think you mean, thanks, will fix.

-Jon

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 07:38:44 +0900

> Intro I think you mean, thanks, will fix.

sorry, too much tex for breakfast.

randy

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:41:31 -0600

> therefore I see no reason to not remove the word you suggest.

Yes, in a way the first sentence of that paragraph covers it.  However, 
the second sentence does something a little different than the first 
sentence.  The second sentence give you permission to, and makes a 
recommendation that you, filter these Last ASNs whenever you filter 
Private Use ASNs.  Put another way, for the purpose of filtering the 
second sentence gives you permission to treat the Last ASNs as if they 
were Private Use ASNs, but only for the purpose of filtering.  And, I 
don't want anyone to assume that permission is only for inbound 
filtering, which is kind of what the current second sentence says, with 
"inbound" in the sentence.

See, Matthew Jones' email of 10/23/13 with subject "Re: [Idr] I-D 
Action: draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01.txt";  In my opinion he is 
interpreting things correctly, filter the Last ASNs whenever you filter 
Private Use ASNs.  But, section 5, paragraph 2, probably also applies to 
Matthew's question as well, as that seems to be a code snippet.

Hope that makes my issue a little clearer, and thanks for agreeing to 
remove "inbound" in that sentence.

Thanks.

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:24:38 -0500

Jakob:

Thank you for your note regarding standard track.  I am checking with
Routing AD on this point. 

For those commenting, please indicate if changing this to a standards track
impacts any of our support. 

Thank you, 

Sue 

From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:47 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'idr wg'
Cc: 'John G. Scudder'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

Support: yes.

I think intended status should be standards track, not informational,
because RFC2119 language is used.

Thanks,

Jakob.

Support: yes/no

Thank you,

Sue and John

Co-chairs

---

From: Jakob Heitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:20:05 +0000

Informational means: Look guys, I am doing this, have a nice day.
Standards track means: Listen guys, you need to do this, otherwise we have interoperability issues.

It's standards track.

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Jakob Heitz
Cc: Susan Hares; 'idr wg'; [email-masked]; 'John G. Scudder'
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

> because RFC2119 language is used.

not arguing for or against info, but noting that 2119 is often used in info docs.  i.e. it is not a reason to choose.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 10:26:53 +0900

> have interoperability issues.

i think most folk here are familiar with that space.

> It's standards track.

as i said

> not arguing for or against info, but noting that 2119 is often used in
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:58:20 -0500

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.   

As for me, what's important is keeping the Internet working - so I'm
flexible.l 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:20 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: Susan Hares; 'idr wg'; [email-masked]; 'John G. Scudder'
Subject: RE: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

Informational means: Look guys, I am doing this, have a nice day.
Standards track means: Listen guys, you need to do this, otherwise we have
interoperability issues.

It's standards track.

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 2:34 PM
To: Jakob Heitz
Cc: Susan Hares; 'idr wg'; [email-masked]; 'John G. Scudder'
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

> because RFC2119 language is used.

not arguing for or against info, but noting that 2119 is often used in info
docs.  i.e. it is not a reason to choose.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:06:22 +0900

actually, since we are waxing pedantic, this is not a protocol spec.
hence it belongs in grow.  sorry, could not resist.

randy

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:25:46 -0500

Randy:

Yep... I will cross post WG LC in Grow to see if they have issues, and get
review for WG LC. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 9:06 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: idr wg
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-01

randy

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:37:07 -0500

> 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

---

From: Jakob Heitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:26:26 +0000

Sorry I raised this. It's not worth the time. I'll agree to any intended status.

--
Jakob Heitz.

> On Jan 14, 2014, at 5:37 AM, "Jon Mitchell" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:48:54 -0500

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:
> business of the two AS administrations.  For the DC BGP, this can 
> still work.
> 

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