[178866] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BCOP appeals numbering scheme -- feedback requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Thu Mar 12 15:07:08 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:06:55 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: "Yardiel D. Fuentes" <yardiel@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1CC6CC8F-1D82-430F-85BE-CE883249E979@gmail.com>
Cc: bcop-support@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--KVfrBUjFfLxW0BPha8LJ6kBCNmC6QjlOS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 3/12/15 12:01 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Hello NANOGers,
>=20
> The NANOG BCOP committee is currently considering strategies on how to=
best create a numbering scheme for the BCOP appeals. As we all know, mos=
t public technical references (IETF, etc) have numbers to clarify referen=
ces. The goal is for NANOG BCOPs to follow some sort of same style.
>=20
> The BCOP committee is looking for feedback and comments on this topic.
>=20
> Currently, the below numbering scheme is being considered:
>=20
> A proposed numbering scheme can be based on how the appeals appeals in =
the BCOP topics are presented as shown below:
>=20
> http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals
>=20
> In the above page, the idea is to introduce a 100-th range for each cat=
egory and as the BCOPs. This way a 100th number range generally identifie=
s each of the categories we currently have. An example is:
identifier/locator overload.
giving intergers intrinsic meaning is generally a mistake imho.
> BCP Range Area of Practice
> 100 - 199 EBGPs =09
> 200 - 299 IGPs
> 300 - 399 Ethernet
> 400 - 499 Class of Service
> 500 - 599 Network Information Processing
> 600 - 699 Security
> 700 - 799 MPLS
> 800 - 899 Generalized
>=20
> An arguable objection could be that the range is limited...but a counte=
r-argument is that considering more than 100 BCOPs would be either a grea=
t success or just a sign of failure for the NANOG community ...
>=20
> Comments or Thoughts ?
>=20
>=20
> Yardiel Fuentes
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
--KVfrBUjFfLxW0BPha8LJ6kBCNmC6QjlOS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlUB488ACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrJ2WACfYSuiw8/n5VA8sEiT9fesZglV
BZAAnRxe3HlhMsDEldJTqLg6t8nUcITo
=bxGx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--KVfrBUjFfLxW0BPha8LJ6kBCNmC6QjlOS--
