IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation)

Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com> Wed, 11 October 2006 21:10 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXlLK-00020B-20; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:10:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXlLI-0001zI-9Y; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:10:20 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXlLF-0000ZG-W3; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:10:20 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2006 14:10:17 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,295,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="330666407:sNHT54101696"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9BLAH1T029783; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:17 -0700
Received: from cisco.com (vaf-lnx1.cisco.com [171.71.142.83]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k9BLA8bF002366; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaf-lnx1.cisco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k9BLA8OI026514; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:08 -0700
Received: (from vaf@localhost) by vaf-lnx1.cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id k9BLA0CF026511; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:00 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: vaf-lnx1.cisco.com: vaf set sender to vaf@cisco.com using -f
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:00 -0700
From: Vince Fuller <vaf@cisco.com>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation)
Message-ID: <20061011211000.GA26236@vaf-lnx1.cisco.com>
References: <E1GX06V-0006wb-4J@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <20061009201106.GD46025@verdi> <5ED54533-DC71-46AD-B9EC-DE9FDCC19E54@ca.afilias.info> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0610100901280.16285@sleibrand-ibm.acs.internap.com> <45DD7B81-03E4-4D65-8CB8-0078E433A6C9@ca.afilias.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <45DD7B81-03E4-4D65-8CB8-0078E433A6C9@ca.afilias.info>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=932; t=1160601017; x=1161465017; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=vaf@cisco.com; z=From:Vince=20Fuller=20<vaf@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20[Idr]=20Re=3A=20Last=20Call=3A=20'Canonical=20representation=20o f=204-byte=20AS=20numbers'=20to=20Informational=20RFC=20(draft-michaelson-4 byte-as-representation); X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DiIuRmWeB1dLNi256A44RLTpA7nE=3D; b=N5+/3P2Weom/EattATfQoUzueuvZ6GVVV//qUHTL/RuN+9hCxzC6vxzeoRR3lElUsiaWrzfS rPZV2MAo8zsgYp4Yi0vJh1cZzcW3dvsyYezZcTWJn1PVk7vHYNesn+We;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=vaf@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: idr@ietf.org, John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

> In terms of resource allocation, it seems to me that you only have to  
> deal with 32-bit numbers, and no distinction is necessary.
> 
> In terms of presentation to an operator, e.g. as part of a "show"  
> command, it also seems like whatever is simplest and easier on the  
> eye wins.
> 
> (I would note that on cisco routers it's perfectly possible to view  
> community string attributes as simple 32-bit numbers, but everybody  
> seems to prefer the representation of two 16-bit values separated by  
> a colon.)

That's because a convention has evolved to structure the community as two
16-bit values, with specific semantic meanings attached to them.

Similarly, the dotted-quad notation for IP addresses once made sense because
class-A/B/C networks assigned structure to the octets.

IMHO, displaying 32-bit ASNs as "x.y" would be a mistake as it would imply
that some structure exists.

	--Vince

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email