Re: [Idr] WGLC on draft-ietf-idr-as-private-reservation-00

[Jeff Wheeler <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> The draft originally was more human/decimal boundary friendly before it
> was a WG doc.  There has been some on list, some on meeting (Vancouver)
> and some out of meeting discussions I did before we moved from nice
> decimal boundary to nice bit or asplain friendly boundary).  Here is one
> of the emails:

I read the mail thread you linked, but it did not give me any
understanding why folks prefer a bit-boundary instead of a
human-readable boundary.  I will ask some more operator colleagues to
give their opinions.  I am surprised anyone would think bit-boundary
is the smartest choice if one of the alternatives looks nicer in the
CLI/NMS.

I understand what you mean if the CLI/NMS allows you to customize and
create multiple prefixes like PRIVATEn and this might be nice for some
applications.  However, VPLS has clearly figured this out with label
blocks.  The applications for making numerous PRIVATEn prefixes within
a network are likely to have conceptually similar demands, in so far
as the management of number ranges is concerned.  Even if they aren't,
though, it seems clear that router software developers have mastery of
subtraction and addition, along with the bit-wise operators.
-- 
Jeff S Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts