Re: 4-Byte AS Number soon to come?

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia 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