Re: ASN draft

Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org> Tue, 07 February 1995 17:47 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04103; 7 Feb 95 12:47 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04099; 7 Feb 95 12:47 EST
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09140; 7 Feb 95 12:47 EST
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA08830 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for iwg-out@ans.net); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:27:44 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:27:44 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:27:44 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org>
To: bmanning@isi.edu
Subject: Re: ASN draft
Cc: bgp@ans.net, jhawk@panix.com, pst@cisco.com, tony@mci.net
Message-Id: <95Feb7.092732pst.6245@cesium.clock.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:27:22 -0800

| So when are you releasing the BGP5s draft?
| And should I also expect to see the BGP5m, BGP5a etc drafts?
| This is sounding like propritary protocols to me.

No, AlterNet and MCI are using essentially the same features,
and Sprint uses a couple of them, and lets it be quite well
known how we are using the hacks done for ICM and SprintLink.

We will not be the only people doing bgp confederations.

There are no secrets.

We have no claim on the nerd-knobs (and probably will wish
to disassociate ourselves from some of them eventually :-) )

| There seems to be a disconnect here.  Adminstrative / Organizational
| are two different things as you have stated elsewhere in this thread.
| I agree that a one-to-one corelation between organization & AS is 
| a rare creature.  I will continue to preach that there is a one-to-one
| corelation between an administrative domain and an AS.  

Ok, so you say we have been arguing apples and oranges.

How do you define an administrative domain?

	Sean.