Re: [sig-policy] prop--065: Format for delegation and recording of 4-byt
On 20/08/2008, at 1:02 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
Hi David,
- I believe that it is strongly desirable to promote a structured
format for 4-byte AS numbers;
I'm interested to hear why having a structured format is seen as
strongly desirable ? What actually is wrong with a basic integer ?
- Although ASDOT is not an IETF standard at this time, it is in use
now by all RIRs and IANA
Granted the RIRs and IANA are using ASDOT, now that being said most
operators and vendors are preferring ASPLAIN. The reason for my
proposal [prop-065] is that it is far simpler to correct the wrong of
an RIR than simply accept their adoption of a non-standard format and
have us the members and our customers confused.
- The documentation by APNIC of AS numbers in ASDOT notation does not
prevent the simple conversion and use of those numbers in ASPLAIN
format by ISPs where required.
I think the concept is converting is bad thing as it's open to errors.
The other concept is that you customer will have a
"different" [looking] AS than you their provider, that again is not a
good thing.
ASDOT is distinctive in its notation from that used for the other
well-known 4-byte Internet resources - IPv4 addresses and BGP
Communities. An AS number in ASDOT notation therefore would be
readily identified as such, where as an ASPLAIN number is not
identifiable out of context. (Even though this has been the case for
2-byte ASs as well, I suspect that the small number of digits used in
AS numbers allocated so far have made this less of an issue in the
2-byte world.)
"Identifiable" is no longer on my list of high priorities, this
changed when AS increased from 4 to 5 digits. I now have systems that
remember such key data, sadly those systems break when a '.' in place
in the middle of an AS number.
[snip]
Given that ASDOT has already been recognised (if not necessarily used
or formally approved) quite widely within the Internet community, I
think it would be a step in the wrong direction to start moving back
from ASDOT to an unformatted number.
I disagree with the above statement, ASDOT has been recognised and
used by the RIRs and IANA. It has not been widely recognised or used
with the Internet community.
ASPLAIN is now default on Juniper and will be default on all coming
Cisco code (aside from XR which as the oldest supported code has only
ASDOT however I hear will also at some point default to PLAIN).
Redback have kindly used their own format ASCOLON, but are now
implementing ASPLAIN.
Prop-065 seeks to gain support form the APNIC membership for APNIC to
use a textual representation that more closely aligns with the way we
will configure our routers and interact with our customers. IMHO that
is a good thing.
I would instead prefer to see
further efforts to progress either ASDOT or an alternative format
towards a ratified standard and adopted in vendor OSs, etc.
I suggest you'll be in the minority there, no wants a 4th format and
we are fast running out of punctuation marks :-)
ASPLAIN will be the default on my routers, it will likely be the
default on most of my customer's routers, I think the actual step back
would be for APNIC to continue to allocate the resource in a different
format.
David Woodgate
--
James