draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00.txt   rfc5398.txt 
Inter-Domain Routing G. Huston Network Working Group G. Huston
Request for Comments: 5398 December 2008
Intended status: Informational Category: Informational
Expires: April 7, 2009
AS Number Reservation for Documentation Use
draft-ietf-idr-as-documentation-reservation-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any Autonomous System (AS) Number Reservation for Documentation Use
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Status of This Memo
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference memo is unlimited.
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright Notice
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. document authors. All rights reserved.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2009. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract Abstract
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating
documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous
System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs, System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs,
books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the
reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in
documentation. documentation.
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion when relating
documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous documented examples to deployed systems, two blocks of Autonomous
System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs, System numbers (ASNs) are reserved for use in examples in RFCs,
books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the books, documentation, and the like. This document describes the
reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in reservation of two blocks of ASNs as reserved numbers for use in
documentation. documentation.
The problems such conflicts may cause have already been encountered The problems such conflicts may cause have already been encountered
with IPv4 addresses where literal use of documented examples in a with IPv4 addresses where literal use of documented examples in a
production environment causes address and routing conflicts with production environment causes address and routing conflicts with
existing services. Since private use ASNs already have a context of existing services. Since private-use ASNs already have a context of
use in deployed networks, these ASNs cannot be used in many example use in deployed networks, these ASNs cannot be used in many example
situations. In making an explicit allocation of a set of AS numbers situations. In making an explicit allocation of a set of AS numbers
reserved for documentation use, it is intended that any such reserved for documentation use, it is intended that any such
operational problems may be avoided in the future. operational problems may be avoided in the future.
Similar considerations have been applied to IPv4 addresses Similar considerations have been applied to IPv4 addresses
[IANA.IPv4], IPv6 addresses [RFC3849], and domain names names [IANA.IPv4], IPv6 addresses [RFC3849], and domain names [RFC2606],
[RFC2606], and reservations have been made for similar purposes. and reservations have been made for similar purposes.
2. ASNs for Documentation Use 2. ASNs for Documentation Use
To allow documentation to accurately describe deployment examples, To allow documentation to accurately describe deployment examples,
the use of public or private-use AS numbers is inappropriate, and a the use of public or private-use AS numbers is inappropriate, and a
reserved block of AS numbers is required. This ensures that reserved block of AS numbers is required. This ensures that
documentation does not clash with public or private use AS numbers in documentation does not clash with public- or private-use AS numbers
deployed networks, and mitigates the risks to operational integrity in deployed networks, and mitigates the risks to operational
of the network through inappropriate use of documentation to perform integrity of the network through inappropriate use of documentation
literal configuration of routing elements on production systems. to perform literal configuration of routing elements on production
systems.
To allow for examples relating to the transition to use of 32-bit AS To allow for examples relating to the transition to use of 32-bit AS
numbers to be correctly described a reservation of two blocks of AS numbers to be correctly described, a reservation of two blocks of AS
numbers is proposed in this document. One reserved block of 16 numbers is proposed in this document. One reserved block of 16
contiguous AS numbers is to lie in the range of numbers that can be contiguous AS numbers is to lie in the range of numbers that can be
expressed as a 16-bit AS number value (i.e. values less than 65536), expressed as a 16-bit AS number value (i.e., values less than 65536),
and a second reserved block of 16 contiguous AS numbers is to lie in and a second reserved block of 16 contiguous AS numbers is to lie in
the range of numbers that can only be expressed as 32-bit AS numbers the range of numbers that can only be expressed as 32-bit AS numbers
(values greater than 65535). (values greater than 65535).
3. Operational Implications 3. Operational Implications
This assignment implies that BGP operational configurations should This assignment implies that BGP operational configurations should
not peer with neighboring ASes that are numbered from this reserved not peer with neighboring ASes that are numbered from this reserved
AS number set. AS number set.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
[Note to IANA, not for publication: The IANA may wish to consider IANA has reserved a contiguous block of 16 Autonomous System numbers
reserving the AS numbers 64496 - 64511 and 65536-65551 (1.0 - 1.15 from the unallocated number range within the "16-bit" number set for
using "asdot" notation) for this purpose.] documentation purposes, namely 64496 - 64511, and a contiguous block
of 16 Autonomous System numbers from the "32-bit" number set for
IANA is requested to reserve a contiguous block of 16 Autonomous documentation, namely 65536 - 65551. These reservations have been
System numbers from the unallocated number range within the "16-bit" documented in the IANA AS Number Registry [IANA.AS].
number set, 1 - 64512, and to reserve a contiguous block of 16
Autonomous System numbers from the "32-bit" number set, 65536 -
4294967294, and documentation this reservation in the IANA AS Number
Registry [IANA.AS].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
AS number reservations do not have any direct impact on Internet AS number reservations do not have any direct impact on Internet
infrastructure security. infrastructure security.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the work of Tomoya Yoshida, Gaurab Upadhaya The author acknowledges the work of Tomoya Yoshida, Gaurab Upadhaya,
and Philip Smith in authoring a policy proposal that was submitted to and Philip Smith in authoring a policy proposal that was submitted to
the APNIC Policy Process in 2008 relating to the reservation of AS the APNIC Policy Process in 2008 relating to the reservation of AS
numbers for documentation purposes. numbers for documentation purposes.
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
[IANA.AS] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", Sep 2008, [IANA.AS] IANA, "Autonomous System (AS) Numbers", Sep 2008,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/>. <http://www.iana.org>.
[IANA.IPv4] [IANA.IPv4] IANA, "IPv4 Global Unicast Address Assignments",
IANA, "IPv4 Global Unicast Address Assignments", Sep 2008, Sep 2008, <http://www.iana.org>.
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/>.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS [RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999. Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix [RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004. Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
Author's Address Author's Address
Geoff Huston Geoff Huston
Email: gih@apnic.net EMail: gih@apnic.net
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 17 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 36 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/