that 4byte ASN you were considering...

Tue Oct 10 17:01:17 UTC 2006

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 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20061010/55f69a0b/attachment.sig>