Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
At 13:34 10/10/2006, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools.
I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you make it to the IESG before they decide. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1160438400 + 381600 = 1160820000.
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools.
I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you make it to the IESG before they decide.
Henk
Yes, I agree too. Please make sure to introduce your proposal within time. If you need some (virtual) signatures of supporters just ask on the list :-) Gunther
Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 13:34 10/10/2006, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools.
I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you make it to the IESG before they decide.
Henk
RFC2622 uses the following Flex macro for AS numbers -- INT [[:digit:]]+ ASNO AS{INT} Note that this does not limit the length of the AS number. While it's no guarantee that an RPSL tool wouldn't break with longer AS numbers, it would seem less likely than with the "." notation. -Larry Blunk Merit
participants (3)
-
Gunther Stammwitz
-
Henk Uijterwaal
-
Larry Blunk