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
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