Skip to main content

BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space
RFC 6793

Yes

(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

No Objection

(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Ralph Droms)
(Russ Housley)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-07-15)
I'm happy to support this document. I am in agreement with Barry that Appendix A is a disappointment. I think it would be helpful to boost this section with some more details.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-11)
It's always helpful, when reviewing a "bis" document, to have a summary of changes.  So I was happy to see this, at the end of the Introduction:

   This document obsoletes RFC 4893, and a comparison with RFC 4893 is
   provided in Appendix A.

Imagine my dismay, then, when I trotted down to Appendix A and found that it has but one, low-content sentence:

   This document includes several clarifications and editorial changes,
   and specifies the error handling for the new attributes.

If that's all you had to say, you should have just put it into the Introduction in the first place.  Grumble.

Happily, there's DIFF.  :-)

And no, don't bother changing it now.  No objection, really, in any case.  Just me being slightly grumpy.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-11)
I would like to see the addition of section on the "manageability impact" of this change.
Actually, the news are good in this case.

1.  BGP-4 MIB module. This is taken care of (as far as I can tell), because the TC took care of the 

InetAutonomousSystemNumber ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    DISPLAY-HINT "d"
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
        "Represents an autonomous system number that identifies an
         Autonomous System (AS).  An AS is a set of routers under a
         single technical administration, using an interior gateway
         protocol and common metrics to route packets within the AS,
         and using an exterior gateway protocol to route packets to
         other ASes'.  IANA maintains the AS number space and has
         delegated large parts to the regional registries.

         Autonomous system numbers are currently limited to 16 bits
         (0..65535).  There is, however, work in progress to enlarge the
         autonomous system number space to 32 bits.  Therefore, this
         textual convention uses an Unsigned32 value without a
         range restriction in order to support a larger autonomous
         system number space."
    REFERENCE   "RFC 1771, RFC 1930"
    SYNTAX       Unsigned32

Note: not sure many people are actually using this MIB module, but that's behind the point.

2. IPFIX. This is taken care of, as http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xml defines the max length.
( See bgpSourceAsNumber and bgpDestinationAsNumber ), and the Template Record defines the length, so 2 or 4 bytes.

3. YANG. I don't believe there is anything BGP YANG module.

Regards, Benoit.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-16)
I'm fine with this document, but I have to second Barry's comment about Appendix
A.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-16)
Agree with Barry and Sean.

I hope (expect) to see this document back on the IESG agenda soon moving to Internet Standard.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-16)
I had the same question as Sean.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-07-18)
Thanks for addressing my discuss.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()