On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Robert Raszuk wrote:

There is no free lunch ... why operators would highly benefit - vendors need to add code to current policy language to handle new fields. And this is where the crux of the issue is why -flex or -wide was not yet been implemented.


So while your proposal seems like a good idea, it's also a can of worms. All of a sudden we're going to have discussions on typical actions people will want to do (prepending is one), how to represent them, perhaps even a common way to configure it so each vendor has similar look and feel.

We need feature parity for 32bit ASNs now. Not in 12-18 months that I estimate above work would take (if even that quick).

Since we're not immediately running out of codepoints, let's do 32:32:32 according to -large, and then let the existing work on -wide run its course and create a good solid framework for that with on-wire format that makes sense, and actions and UI that are well thought out. I think there are multiple people willing to work on it. It just requires lots more work than there is immediate need for, to solve the immediate problem. You probably want to announce the work to NANOG, bring in more people from the operator community to get their opinion, get buy-in from vendors that they're willing to commit resources to crate code to support this extensive framework, etc.

I would have supported your proposal if this was 2010 and we had 5+ years before we ran out of 16bit ASNs. Unfortunately, that's not the situation we're in. Unfortunately, now is the time for a quick-fix that's not that elegant and flexible, but gets the job done to create feature parity between 16 and 32bit ASNs.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swm...@swm.pp.se

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to