that 4byte ASN you were considering...
David W. Hankins
David_Hankins at isc.org
Tue Oct 10 23:03:54 UTC 2006
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:54PM +0000, Michael Shields wrote:
> Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express
> four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a
Totally, and I would be surprised if that were not the eventual
outcome. In the absence of any other format, the dotted quad will
probably bubble up into user interfaces eventually.
I think everyone else is wrong that there is going to be some sort
of heinous "y2k" doomsday scenario here in regards to breaking their
current-day scripts or operational practices, or if there were that
this is an issue to take up with the IETF rather than the vendors
making said changes.
> As to whether this is within the scope of the IETF, note that they are
> already going far, far beyond this in the Netconf WG, which is defining
> a complete router configuration protocol.
Netconf absolutely, and zeroconf too. These are machine languages,
they aren't user interfaces. So this is just a level of indirection.
If someone were suggesting a change to the netconf wire format
that is not reverse compatible, that's obviously something that
should be brought up at the IETF!
But a change to the config file or web/scripting interface or
whatever that you use to trigger Netconf into action?
Totally not their bag.
ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email training at isc.org.
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the NANOG