Re: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry

[apologies for duplicates]

Hi,

If people want a representation for 32 bit AS numbers different than  
that described in draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-02, they  
should come to a consensus very, very soon and tell IANA about it.   
32-bit ASNs have been discussed for several years now and (according  
to the Michaelson draft), RIRs and some router vendors have already  
adopted the "<16-bit>.<16-bit>" notation.  As such, and since the  
RIRs are going to start allocating 32-bit ASNs starting Jan 1, 2007,  
IANA chose to use that notation (to be clear, IANA doesn't really  
have a strong opinion on what notation is used, but we do have a  
strong opinion that one must be chosen).

Obviously, if we're going to change the notation, we should do so  
_REAL SOON NOW_.

Rgds,
-drc

On Dec 29, 2006, at 2:39 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:
> Henk
>
> draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-02 was last called on the  
> idr list so
> that is where I think that draft-uijterwaal-rpsl-4byteas-ext-01.txt  
> should be
> discussed
>
> However, draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-02 did come in  
> for criticism
> (some relayed from NANOG), with perhaps not enough consensus for it  
> to go
> forward. Its current status is 'Awaiting writeup' (by AD).
>
> Alternatively, there are some fine RIPE lists where this could be  
> raised:-)
>
> Tom Petch

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