I oppose prop-065 on the following grounds:- I believe that it is strongly desirable to promote a structured format for 4-byte AS numbers; - Although ASDOT is not an IETF standard at this time, it is in use now by all RIRs and IANA - The documentation by APNIC of AS numbers in ASDOT notation does not prevent the simple conversion and use of those numbers in ASPLAIN format by ISPs where required.
ASDOT is distinctive in its notation from that used for the other well-known 4-byte Internet resources - IPv4 addresses and BGP Communities. An AS number in ASDOT notation therefore would be readily identified as such, where as an ASPLAIN number is not identifiable out of context. (Even though this has been the case for 2-byte ASs as well, I suspect that the small number of digits used in AS numbers allocated so far have made this less of an issue in the 2-byte world.)
My personal experience with BGP communities was that working with a plain 32-bit number was awkward. Although working with dual formats is also awkward, I would rather accept that as an issue of transition rather than accept the permanent issues (especially typos) that could accompany long-term use of long unformatted numbers.
Given that ASDOT has already been recognised (if not necessarily used or formally approved) quite widely within the Internet community, I think it would be a step in the wrong direction to start moving back from ASDOT to an unformatted number. I would instead prefer to see further efforts to progress either ASDOT or an alternative format towards a ratified standard and adopted in vendor OSs, etc.
Regards, David Woodgate At 11:17 PM 19/08/2008, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I support this proposal. I am not sure why APNIC in the first place opted to use ASDOT without any prior consultation with the community. thanks -gaurab