[routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
tp
ripe at dial.pipex.com
Sun Dec 9 21:06:59 CET 2007
Geoff Interesting. I was unsure whether or not this WG was familiar with the Internet Draft I referred to and thought that in case it was not, I would mention it. Before doing so, I checked the status on the Internet Drafts and was puzzled by what I saw - but posted here anyway. The discussion on the IETF idr list a year ago was in response to a Last Call of an individual submission (as opposed to a chartered item of a Working Group)after which, I would expect it either to be approved as an RFC, or revised and resubmitted. A year later it is not an RFC - hence my reference to meeting resistance - nor have I seen any further discussion about it on the idr list. So when I checked the Internet Drafts database, I wouldn't have been surprised to see that the ID had expired. Instead, it has advanced from version -01 to version -05; five versions in a year is the progress of a swift, rather than that of a snail, hence my reference to 'winging it'. And you have joined in as an editor of it. So I remain puzzled; is it being discussed somewhere else? (NANOG?:-) what has triggered all revised versions? where has it been in the past year and where is it going? Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Huston" <gih at apnic.net> To: "tp" <ripe at dial.pipex.com> Cc: "Rob Evans" <rhe at nosc.ja.net>; <routing-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation > Tom Petch wrote: > > Not sure if you aware but there is an IETF Internet Draft winging its way > > through the system on this topic, namely > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-05. > > txt > > > > > speaking as a co-author here: "winging its way" is not a phrase I'd use > for almost any draft in the IETF system, but in this case its an > entirely inappropriate characterization of the pace of this document. > > The tracked state of this draft is "AD is Watching", but if you look a > little closer you see that the IETF Area Director listed is not a > current Routing Area director. > > So this characterization is just a little exaggerated! > > Like the 4byte AS draft itself I'd tend towards an adjective to describe > thepace of this document through the IETF as "glacial" but maybe others > would see "geological" as being closer to reality ;-). > > Even so, I encourage those who have some interest in this topic to read > the draft and comment, either to the authors, to this mailing list, to > the idr mailing list where the 4 byte ASN work was undertaken in the > context of the IETF, or wherever else that might take your fancy. > > > > > > It did get discussed on the IETF idr list in October 2006, and met significant > > resistance. > > Again I have to say that this characterization is just a little exaggerated! > > > > There were also comments then about NANOG taking a position on > > this. > > > err? NANOG "taking a position" ? How? Though some subliminal collective > subconscious alignment? Or via some alignment of the planets? > > > > I haven't seen any discussion since. > > > Notation is such a strange thing - all kinds of folk have flash opinions > about notation but in the end notation is like pronounciation - informal > use accretes social weight through continued usage and then the > informaal use becomes a convention which then becomes usage rules. But > when we try to apply this social process to technology we run into the > issue of formal notation and rigid grammars because of the issues of > have a notation that can be used conveniently by both human and machine > parsers. So it makes some sense to try to define a notation convention > early on in the process. > > The draft notes some alternatives for notation that have been observed > so far and makes a recommendation to adopt one such notation ("asdot" in > this case, using the terminology as described in the draft) > > > > > Current status is Application Director Watching > > Actual status is "previous AD might have been watching" > > Rob Evan's advice to the folk on this list that: > > "people do need to review their in-house tools and scripts to ensure > they will work with numbers expressed in this notation." > > is still appropriate and extends far beyond mere notation. The issue is > one of looking at your operating support system and provisioning tools > and even if you are not going to upgrade your routers' BGP anytime soon, > what happens when your customers or peers front up with a 4 byte ASN and > your systems start to see AS23456 popping up everywhere? > > (see slides 38 and 39 of http://www.iepg.org/2007-12-ietf70/asns.pdf for > some additional pointers here as to what to review and why) > > > > regards, > > Geoff > >
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]