[110800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Circuit numbering scheme - best practice?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Potter)
Sun Jan 18 16:31:37 2009
In-Reply-To: <49712C90.7070409@whack.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:31:25 -0600
From: Josh Potter <joshpotter@gmail.com>
To: Peter Wohlers <pedro@whack.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The number idea is nifty until you have to change your number...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Peter Wohlers <pedro@whack.org> wrote:
> Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>> We've grown to the point that "The MCI T-1 in Ontario" or "Bob's ethernet
>> to port 6/23 on switch 7" aren't scaling. Also in working with carriers we
>> are frequently asked to provide our internal circuit number.
>>
>> I've seen a lot of the the LEC scheme NN-XXXX-NNNNNN where XXXX has some
>> significance with regard to the speed and type of circuit. The leading NN
>> seems to be a mystery and the trailing NNNNNN is a serial number.
>>
>> I've also seen DS1-NNNNNNN as a straight speed-serial number type of thing
>> and horrendously long circuit numbers including CLLI codes such as
>> 101/T3/SNLOCAGTH07/SNLOCA01K15 .
>>
>> Any suggestions from those who have been down this road as to a schema
>> that makes sense and is scalable? Are there documented best practices?
>>
> my fave: description "XO#SF/LUXX/500032/TQW Tel#877.792.5550 ";
> Adding the NOC phone number for carrier in question is immensely useful. I
> know, long hauls with different LECs complicates things, but guarantees that
> someone will thank you at some point in time :)
>
> --Peter
>
>
--
Josh Potter
