Subject: [Idr] draft-michaelson-as-representation-00.txt as IDR WG document

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:40:29 -0700

Folks,

Please send your comments on the attached. The deadline for
comments is Sep 3, 2008.

Yakov.
------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:51:39 +1000
From:    George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked]
Subject: [Idr] Draft on the textual representation of AS Numbers

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-michaelson-as-representation-00.txt for  
adoption as a Working Group draft.

regards

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

------- End of Forwarded Message

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

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:08:41 +0200

Hi all,

> Please send your comments on the attached. The deadline for

I'm in favor of picking up this draft (and not the draft-huston...
on the same topic).  The asdot notation has been in use informally
for about 2 years now by the 5 RIRs, s/w vendors and a group of ISPs
who got the first 32 bit ASNs.  There are no known problems with the
format that this group couldn't solve.   Switching to another format
will just create work for early adopters without any technical
advantage.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is one of the choices leaving the office open?
                                       Alan Greenspan on the next elections
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:58:20 -0400

Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]> wrote:
> who got the first 32 bit ASNs.

   I, at least, see no reason to ask the RIRs to change their registration
and reporting practices. My concern is with use of ASNs by router
maintenance personnel as we go forward. For these purposes, I believe
five-digit ASNs which happen to be greater than 65536 are the easiest;
and when we get to needing six digits, that will still be far easier
than any subfield scheme we might devise. (Feel free to add your own
sentence about seven-digit ASNs -- I don't expect to live long enough
to see any.)

> There are no known problems with the format that this group couldn't
> solve.

   I certainly don't want to downplay the ability of this group to
solve "problems." But why shoot for full-blown "problems?" Aren't we
better to aim for "least amazement?"

> Switching to another format will just create work for early adopters
> without any technical advantage.

   I do not claim a "technical" advantage: I see an "operational"
advantage. And the "work for early adopters" of changing the upper
limit for integer parsing seems too trivial to deserve any worry.

   If you seriously want to require folks to use an "asdot" notation
as they maintain their filters for AS-paths, you should at least give
us a serious proposal on what those as-path filtering statements will
look like.

   (BTW, this issue has been placed on the IESG agenda for Thursday.
I don't expect they're actually planning to act on it; but it might
be good for the Chair(s) to summarize our discussion to

<[email-masked]>

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

---

From: Brian Dickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:39:38 -0400

> limit for integer parsing seems too trivial to deserve any worry.
+1.

And, while I appreciate that some effort might have been expended by 
those early adopters,
I expect that the "work" involved in reverting things to the old 2-byte 
AS method, is to literally
back out the changes.

(It is unfortunate that that work would have been for naught, but 
asplain really does simplify things
for the vast majority of systems and users, who are not those early 
adopters.)

At worst, the changes to systems already doing asdot, should involve 
duplicating routines
for manipulating two-byte AS numbers, and changing "2" to "4", or 
"short" to "int".

(There may be some file conversion issues, but using one routine to read 
and the other to write, should sort that out quickly.)

Brian

P.S. Meta-argument - any time I see an argument or sales pitch that uses 
"just" or "only", I view the rest of the statement skeptically...
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:48:44 +0200

John Leslie wrote:
> maintenance personnel as we go forward. 

I think it will be extremely confusing (and error-prone) to have two
different formats for the same identifier.

> be good for the Chair(s) to summarize our discussion to

No, neither do I :-)  At least, it hasn't happened since the issue was
brought up in 2006.

Henk

---

From: "UTTARO, JAMES, ATTLABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:02:38 -0400

I agree with this assessment. From a operational perspective it is much
more intuitive to simply use a 5 or 6 digit AS. Changing to a asdot
notation would cause a significant change in OSS, Maintenance and
Operations. I support asplain representation.

Jim Uttaro  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Henk Uijterwaal
Cc: Yakov Rekhter; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-michaelson-as-representation-00.txt as IDR
WGdocument

> who got the first 32 bit ASNs.

   I, at least, see no reason to ask the RIRs to change their
registration

<[email-masked]>