nanog mailing list archives
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins () isc org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:03:54 -0700
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:54PM +0000, Michael Shields wrote:
Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a
Totally, and I would be surprised if that were not the eventual outcome. In the absence of any other format, the dotted quad will probably bubble up into user interfaces eventually. I think everyone else is wrong that there is going to be some sort of heinous "y2k" doomsday scenario here in regards to breaking their current-day scripts or operational practices, or if there were that this is an issue to take up with the IETF rather than the vendors making said changes.
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.
Netconf absolutely, and zeroconf too. These are machine languages, they aren't user interfaces. So this is just a level of indirection. If someone were suggesting a change to the netconf wire format that is not reverse compatible, that's obviously something that should be brought up at the IETF! But a change to the config file or web/scripting interface or whatever that you use to trigger Netconf into action? Totally not their bag. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email training () isc org. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- that 4byte ASN you were considering... bmanning (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Kevin Loch (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 10)
- RE: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Neil J. McRae (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Joe Abley (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael Shields (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Kevin Loch (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Randy Bush (Oct 09)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... william(at)elan.net (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael . Dillon (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Gunther Stammwitz (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Larry Blunk (Oct 10)