North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
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 [email protected] -- 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