IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ASN draft

Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org> Tue, 07 February 1995 06:44 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22466; 7 Feb 95 1:44 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22462; 7 Feb 95 1:44 EST
Received: from interlock.ans.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23775; 7 Feb 95 1:44 EST
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA55240 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 1.1 for iwg-out@ans.net); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:36:47 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-2); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:36:47 -0500
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:36:47 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org>
To: bmanning@isi.edu, pst@cisco.com
Subject: Re: ASN draft
Cc: bgp@ans.net, jhawk@panix.com, tony@mci.net
Message-Id: <95Feb6.223641pst.6231@cesium.clock.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 22:36:39 -0800

[Paul Traina, being helpful]
| Perhaps we should be calling the darn things something other than ASNs

A rose by any other name still smells like Airwick?

Seriously, though, if you need a magic number to describe
a provider or other kind of responsible party, then make one.
Make it and ranges of address space indivisible, even, to
make it simple for registries and registrars to use the magic
number.

Just don't use it for building routing policy, because
ownership (or administrative responsibility) and routing
policy are two separate animals.

On all other fronts, I am in complete agreement with Paul,
which should surpise nobody (except maybe me and Paul).

	Sean.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email