Subject: [Idr] Draft on the textual representation of AS Numbers

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:46:30 +1000

The issue of the appropriate format for the textual representation of  
32-bit AS numbers appears to a matter of continuing comment, and there  
have been some calls for the IETF to adopt a standard representation  
for 32-bit AS numbers in the same way that RFC4291 defines a standard  
textual representation of IPv6 addresses. The appropriate WG for this  
work appears to be the IDR working group, and I would like to request  
that the WG considers draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt for  
adoption as a Working Group draft.

regards,

    Geoff Huston
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:33:19 -0400

Geoff,

On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:46:30PM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> 32-bit AS numbers appears to a matter of continuing comment, and there have 
> been some calls for the IETF to adopt a standard representation for 32-bit 
> AS numbers in the same way that RFC4291 defines a standard textual 
> representation of IPv6 addresses. The appropriate WG for this work appears 
> to be the IDR working group, and I would like to request that the WG 
> considers draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt for adoption as a Working 
> Group draft.

Having read this draft and having also previously commented on the
problems the asdot/asdot+ formats create within SNMP/SMIv2 presentation,
I support the adoption of this draft.

-- Jeff

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:28:57 -0400

Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> ... I would like to request that the WG considers
>> draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt for adoption as a Working 
>> Group draft.
> 

   +1

   We might reasonably document current usage of the asdot/asdot+
formats, but for the long haul, I believe a single six-digit number
will be easier to work with than two numbers separated by a dot.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:42:53 -0400

Geoff,

> considers draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt for adoption as a Working 

Having read this draft and being familiar with the issue at hand,
I support the adoption of this draft as a WG item.

I do have one minor open question (i.e. for anyone to answer):

Is it generally the case that the context for an AS number will always be
exclusively 16-bit or 32-bit, i.e. that there won't be cases where there
is a need to distinguish between the 16-bit representations and 32-bit
representations of AS numbers < 2^16-1 ?

(I believe the answer to my question is "Yes", in which case I support advancing
the draft without modification.)

Brian Dickson

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:42:05 -0700

> will be easier to work with than two numbers separated by a dot.

Why do you limit to 6 digits?

Thanks,
-drc

---

From: Michael Lambert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:17:30 -0400

I support adopting the ID as a working group draft.  That being said,  
I don't necessarily agree with the authors' recommendation.  That a  
difference exists between 23456789 and 23465789 is not as obvious to  
the naked eye as that a difference exists between 357.60437 and  
358.3901.

Michael

On 20 Aug 2008, at 02:46, Geoff Huston wrote:

> The issue of the appropriate format for the textual representation  
> of 32-bit AS numbers appears to a matter of continuing comment, and  
> there have been some calls for the IETF to adopt a standard  
> representation for 32-bit AS numbers in the same way that RFC4291  
> defines a standard textual representation of IPv6 addresses. The  
> appropriate WG for this work appears to be the IDR working group,  
> and I would like to request that the WG considers draft-huston-as- 
> representation-00.txt for adoption as a Working Group draft.
>
> regards,
>
>   Geoff Huston

---

From: "Marco Rodrigues" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:33:47 -0400

After reading this draft, I support the adoption of this draft as a WG
item. The consistent textual representation of ASN's is critical moving
forward and I believe the use of asplain provides the least path of
resistance when it comes to OSS consistency and operational sustainment.

cheers.

-mpr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Geoff Huston
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:47 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: George Michaelson
> Subject: [Idr] Draft on the textual representation of AS Numbers
>

---

From: Larry Blunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:49:25 -0400

It seems that one could list counter-examples --

12.34567 and 12.35467,   820999 and 821089

      I generally favor asplain, but do recognize that asdot
has become fairly well ingrained in practice with
32-bit AS nums.

 -Larry Blunk

Michael Lambert wrote:
> the naked eye as that a difference exists between 357.60437 and 358.3901.
>
> Michael
>
>> 32-bit AS numbers appears to a matter of continuing comment, and 
>> appropriate WG for this work appears to be the IDR working group, and 
>> I would like to request that the WG considers 
>> draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt for adoption as a Working Group 
>> draft.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>>   Geoff Huston

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:50:22 -0300

Geoff,

Having read the document, I support the asplain representation.

Regards,

Roque

> On Aug 20, 2008, at 3:46 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:39:28 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Geoff Huston wrote:

> representation of IPv6 addresses. The appropriate WG for this work 
> appears to be the IDR working group, and I would like to request 

I would welcome adoption of this draft.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	[email-masked]	[email-masked]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
"No job too big; no fee too big!"
 		-- Dr. Peter Venkman, "Ghost-busters"
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: "Samita Chakrabarti" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:38:06 -0700

I support "asplain" representation of the AS numbers as it is backward
compatible and simple. 

Thus I am in favor of advancing the draft-huston-as-representation-00.txt
draft so that all systems, documents and implementations are consistent with
an uniform AS notation.

-Samita

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Geoff
>Huston
>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 11:47 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: George Michaelson

---

From: Dow Street <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:31:52 -0700

All,

FYI - The IAB has posted recent correspondence on this matter to  
their public website:

http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2008-08-16-32bit-AS- 
huston.html

R,
Dow Street
IAB Exec Dir