that 4byte ASN you were considering...

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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20061010/268ed2f7/attachment.sig>