Gentle Reminder about NANOG

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.

OPS review:

  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
  IESG meeting.

  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: Send to to join.