[92770] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Shields)
Tue Oct 10 17:24:52 2006
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:23:54 +0000
From: Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com>
To: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20061010204142.GD21429@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2006-10-10 13:41:42, David W. Hankins wrote:
> It is weird, to me, that people who have concerns about their
> router's configuration syntax expect to be able to take this up
> with the IETF, rather than their router manufacturer.
Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express
four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a
mediocre notation and using it consistently would be better than having
to live forever with multiple notations. Operating a heterogenous
network is hard enough already.
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.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netconf-charter.html
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-prot-12.txt
--
Shields.
