mailing list archives
Re: Gentle Reminder about NANOG
From: bmanning () ISI EDU
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 05:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Please send me a summary of your remarks from Tuesday's discussions prior to
9:15am concerning RFC 1797 and OPS review of IETF documentation.
With the increasing number of RFCs and drafts that have a direct
impact on operations, the question was asked if a true operations
forum like NANOG would be willing to function as a review board.
It was noted that there have been efforts in the past to address
this issue, within the Operations Area of the IETF, which met with
some difficulties. It was suggested that the IESG be approached
regarding a modification of the standard RFC template to include
a operational impact statement, much like the security impact
bullet. Bill Manning has taken the action item to do just that.
He has asked the IETF OPS AD for input and will talk to the RFC
editor when she returns, about making this suggestion at the next
There are some hopes that if there is progress in this area that
operators will actually spend time reviewing drafts prior to
publication with an eye to the impact the proposed changes will
have on operations.
RFC 1797 status:
RFC 1797 is authorization to test for problems in a distributed class
A, before the IANA begins delegation of CIDR blocks in the traditional
class A space. Every owner of an AS number has the subnet
39.<AS & 0x7fff>.0/24. The assignment is temporary, and lasts
until 951131. There are currently 12 providers with registered
delegations. The inital test is to be able to support your own
in-addr domain from the primary server. There are currently some
reachability problems, since some providers are blocking /24 nets.
Current both cisco and gated code is being tested. Bay Networks
may be involved soon.
There are a few hosts currently on-net that are not ciscos:
Other hosts should be brought on-net and some interesting services
should be hosts on them. It is likely that one or more root name
servers will be moved and at least one ftp and web server may make the
Two of the lessons learned so far:
- Conversion to classless EGP is mandatory (BGP4 is your choice)
and conversion to a classless IGP is mandatory. This last
is not generally recognized and may be the cause of significant
problems in 1996 unless there is action taken NOW.
- cisco users need to add the following: "ip classless" to their configs.
There has been set up a mailing list to coordinate and discuss this
experiment: exp39 () isi edu Send to exp39-request () isi edu to join.
- Re: Gentle Reminder about NANOG bmanning (May 25)