[83738] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Aug 23 09:40:59 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508231318120.5291@sheen.jakma.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:40:01 +0200
To: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 23-aug-2005, at 15:16, Paul Jakma wrote:
>> then i would prefer going ahead with the new solution and picking
>> it up if it works!
> Well, in order to justify the hassle of invalidating existing
> implementations of the draft as it stands, I suspect there'd need
> to be sufficient examples of real-world problems with passive BGP
> 'readers' to get consensus in IDR to change.
This is exactly why people shouldn't implement drafts except possibly
as a private in-house feasibility study. There has been a huge
inflation of the status of various IETF documents, to the degree than
BGP today apparently isn't considered mature enough to be an
"internet standard".
BTW, I find the notion that there is a new attribute that carries 32-
bit AS numbers while at the same time the original AS path can either
hold 16-bit or 32-bit AS numbers depending on the capabilities of the
peer rather strange. Why not simply keep the current AS path 16 bits
and create a new 32-bit one?
And what's with that "octet" thing, anyway.
