[routing-wg]Representation of four byte AS numbers.

On 20/10/2008, at 4:57 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 04:34:18AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> Speaking personally, I'm not sure what the objective would be in
>> introducing a similar proposal to RIPE at this stage, given that the
>> IETF process of standardization of nomenclature for 32-bit AS numbers
>> is reaching a conclusion in the coming couple of weeks or so, but I
>> guess (hope?) that the motivation for doing this in parallel in the
>> context of the RIPE policy development process  will become apparent
>> once the proposal you refer to is actually posted to the address-
>> policy mailing list.
>
> The main issue is that our policy documents explicitely use ASDOT
> notation for 4-byte AS numbers.
>
> If the IETF decides to deprecate this notation, our documents need  
> changing,
> and we need a formal policy proposal to do that - and since this is an
> address policy document, the proposal landed on APWG's plate.
>
> I've asked the routing- and DB-WG chairs to send a "heads up" to their
> respective working groups, so that interested parties can  
> participate in
> the discussion (if needed), and because it will also need an  
> implementation
> change in the RIPE DB software.
>

Thanks for this explanation Gert - it is now easier to appreciate what  
you are after here with this proposal.

As a gentle suggestion to the authors of this as yet unseen proposal,  
they may want to consider simply proposing that RIPE uses recognized  
standard notations for IP addresses and AS numbers in its registry and  
in all published material, as and when such standards are published,  
and thereby attempt to avid any subsequent revisiting of this matter  
on a case-by-case basis.

(With reference to your deprecate comment, I should note that the IETF  
never adopted the ASDOT notation in the first place, or adopted  
formally any other notation for AS numbers in the past. The informal  
adoption of the ASDOT notation was one that had a more organic origin.  
A specification of notation was not part of the 4-byte AS Internet  
draft. The original slideware used by Enke Chen, and the original  
implementations of this code in Redback products, used a ASCOLON  
notation. When the original 32-bit AS policy proposal for the RIRs was  
introduced to the policy communities it included reference to this  
defacto ASCOLON notation. The  ARIN policy forum provided feedback  
that the colon was confusing with respect to communities and some  
other delimiter would be better, and ASDOT was suggested. Subsequent  
iterations of the policy were adjusted to remove all reference to AS  
number notation because notation standards was not an RIR  
responsibility so all reference to ASDOT or anything else was stripped  
from the policy proposals in the RIRs. But in the absence of anything  
else what was left was ASDOT, and thats what was sused to populate the  
IANA registry, the RIRs' registries and early implementations of 32- 
bit AS BGP. To be frank I'm not sure why it resurfaced in APNIC  
earlier this year as a formal policy proposal, given the earlier view  
that notational standards were properly the business of the IETF in  
this context, but I guess that some flexibility is an attribute of our  
system.)

regards,

   Geoff Huston

   Disclaimer: what I said last time  - its still just me!