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: in-addr.ep.net anka.stupi.se exp39.ripe.net postel.wind.surfnet.nl 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 change. 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. --bill