Re: [sig-policy] prop-065: Format for delegation and recording of 4-byte
Given the discussion regarding AS format now happening in the IETF
Inter-Domain Routing (IDR) Working Group, I withdraw my opposition to
this proposal, and instead urge APNIC compliance with the ultimate
results of the IETF IDR discussion.
At 01:02 PM 20/08/2008, David Woodgate wrote:
I oppose prop-065 on the following grounds:
- I believe that it is strongly desirable to promote a structured
format for 4-byte AS numbers;
- Although ASDOT is not an IETF standard at this time, it is in use
now by all RIRs and IANA
- 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.
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
My personal experience with BGP communities was that working with a
plain 32-bit number was awkward. Although working with dual formats
is also awkward, I would rather accept that as an issue of transition
rather than accept the permanent issues (especially typos) that could
accompany long-term use of long unformatted numbers.
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 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.
At 11:17 PM 19/08/2008, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>I support this proposal.
>I am not sure why APNIC in the first place opted to use ASDOT without
>any prior consultation with the community.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net