On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:59:22AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote: > somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad > representation.
Or domain names.
I'm concerned by the kind of discussion I'm seeing here.
RFC's are not law, and if your router vendor adopts this informational
document in such a way that it breaks your scripts then that's an issue
to take up with your router vendor(s).
I don't see why there's any reason it can't be made so (excuse me for
using what little Cisco configuration language I can remember):
o 'conf t' accepts:
router bgp 255.255.255.254
neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 255.255.255.255
o 'wr mem/term' writes out:
router bgp 4294967294 # 255.255.255.254
neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295 # 255.255.255.255
or even:
# BGP 255.255.255.254
router bgp 4294967294
# EZ-ASN: 255.255.255.255
neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295
One or both of which probably won't break anyone's scripts.
The point is that this is a configuration language versioning issue,
which isn't something I think of the IETF having either a lot of
interest or ability to define.
As Shields has indicated, email the IETF mailing lists if you
must.
I'm in favor of people sending mail to lists to which I do not
subscribe.
But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of
role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly
not to fulfill.
--
ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DDNS & DHCP. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpBgptt6Z5i1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
