[as112-ops] LOA Request for AS112 Prefixes

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

On 07/11/2018 02:03, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> I think we're getting a long way off the topic of whether an LOA
> would be useful, or whether there are better ways to convince
> upstreams to carry the routes.  Most of the discussion has surrounded
> how people prefer AS112 be routed, as opposed to how to get AS112
> routes accepted in the first place.  It doesn't seem like we're
> solving Siyuan's problem.
> 
> So, in an attempt to refocus things .. assume that an AS112 operator
> has good reasons for wanting to announce AS112 prefixes over
> transit.
> 
> Has anyone had problems convincing an upstream to accept AS112 routes
> where pointing them at the RFC was not sufficient?  Did something
> else work, or were you left not being able to get routes accepted by
> that upstream?  I'm trying to get at whether there are common cases
> where an LOA would be useful.

Seems like you're looking for data about how big the problem is, that's 
fine - my input below.

But I'd say: even if one or two operators have issues - and OP Siyuan 
has issues -
[and preferably if they have considered and accepted the possibility of 
attracting [a lot of] traffic from far away]
- then OARC should provide a LOA for AS112 instance operators.

The data (how many have problems) should help to judge whether you want 
a generic LOA or for once off make specific one(s).



Data of my case:
- AS112 is operated by the IXP.
- currently still as "downstream customer" of IXP management net, not on
    the IXP peering LAN, I have to fix this.
- IXP doesn't want AS112 advertised to upstream(s)
in my dayjob:
- we're upstream provider of the IXP (management net).
- have no request from IXP (=my other hat) to accept AS112
- am happy with AS112 at the IXP, no reason to deploy own AS112
- would be hesitant to accept AS112 on transit connection for IXP
    (management net), and to advertise to upstreams, would prefer to add
    3356:70 and 6453:70 to get upstreams to lower-pref
- if still would have to do it, adding AS112 into our AS-SET in IRR
    would do the job. [1]


Regards,
Frank

PS: Nice letter, Joe!
I made 2 little suggestion in the doc
Presuming also the there should be space for someone from OARC to sign?


[1]
whois -h whois.radb.net 192.175.48.0/24
show a lot of stuff that could possibly be called garbage...