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

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Tue, 10 October 2006 16:37 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXKby-0001Jb-8W; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:37:46 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXKbw-0001Fm-Ih; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:37:44 -0400
Received: from kahuna.telstra.net ([2001:360::4]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXKbu-0004g5-MI; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:37:44 -0400
Received: from gihm3.apnic.net (kahuna.telstra.net [IPv6:2001:360::4]) by kahuna.telstra.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9AGbJ28016253; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:37:22 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from gih@apnic.net)
Message-Id: <7.0.0.16.2.20061011023158.02a94558@apnic.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.0.16
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:37:14 +1000
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>, Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@internap.com>
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation)
In-Reply-To: <45DD7B81-03E4-4D65-8CB8-0078E433A6C9@ca.afilias.info>
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"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
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 encoding values into a wire format to include in a BGP
>attribute, though, might it not be important for the router to know
>which was intended? Perhaps not; I'm not a router vendor, and I'm not
>presupposing an answer.

According to draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-12.txt, the wire format uses 
straightforward 32 bit fields to encode an AS number in "new" BGP.

The notation is in the form of offering guidance to folk relating to 
CLI, Route Registry Objects, Whois Objects, routing requests, ... and 
other places where humans and AS numbers intersect. I'm sure that 
most implementations of such tools would align to the principle of 
being liberal in what they accepts as input, but the notation is 
intended to offer some guidance to implementors and users of a 
default input format and a default output format.

regards,

Geoff





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