[j-nsp] AS65535 rejected in recent JunOS

[Jeff Haas]

> 
> I'm first to admit that we've done terrible mistake years ago by
> choosing 65535 as CE ASN,
[...]
> 
> 
> But considering that in my biases I'm reading this wrong. It seems it
> would still be fundamentally against robustness principles to drop
> these prefixes.
> 
> I think vendors would benefit on engaging the community more actively,
> it would have not been large effort to ask in j-nsp about this, and
> use the discussion as input in your decision-making. I understand how
> hard it is to implement code based on just RFC, without having
> operational experience.
> I love JNPR is working on quality and correctness, and I understand
> mistakes do happen. But they would happen less, if customers voices
> would be heard more.
> 
> Is anyone aware if there already is beta rebuild available with knob
> to change this behavior?
Speaking as one of the authors on RFC 7300, the fact that this made it
into any shipping Junos code was a mistake.  As part of work to add the
4-byte private AS numbers to the remove-private code, RFC 7300 compliance
was included as part of the work on that code.

We did poll several providers about AS 65535 and were told that we were
mistaken to restrict its use.  That code was pulled out, but unfortunately
we missed one of the places for that code change.

PR 1069307 covers the fix for those branches to restore AS 65535 to use.

-- Jeff