[83750] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Tue Aug 23 17:56:18 2005
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:40:01 +0200."
<C4572125-356D-49B9-BE24-AA55B1C014E7@muada.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:55:45 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
In message <C4572125-356D-49B9-BE24-AA55B1C014E7@muada.com>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
>
>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.
In general, you're right; however, BGP documents have a special status.
Because of how crucial BGP is to the Internet's functioning, I-Ds won't
progress to RFC status (at least as Proposed Standard) without two
interoperating implementations. For everything else, you're right.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
