North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:59:22AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote: > somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad > representation. Or domain names. I'm concerned by the kind of discussion I'm seeing here. RFC's are not law, and if your router vendor adopts this informational document in such a way that it breaks your scripts then that's an issue to take up with your router vendor(s). I don't see why there's any reason it can't be made so (excuse me for using what little Cisco configuration language I can remember): o 'conf t' accepts: router bgp 255.255.255.254 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 255.255.255.255 o 'wr mem/term' writes out: router bgp 4294967294 # 255.255.255.254 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295 # 255.255.255.255 or even: # BGP 255.255.255.254 router bgp 4294967294 # EZ-ASN: 255.255.255.255 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295 One or both of which probably won't break anyone's scripts. The point is that this is a configuration language versioning issue, which isn't something I think of the IETF having either a lot of interest or ability to define. As Shields has indicated, email the IETF mailing lists if you must. I'm in favor of people sending mail to lists to which I do not subscribe. But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly not to fulfill. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email email@example.com. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins