Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
[This isn't meant to be flippant or anything else of the kind, it's a genuinely heartfelt thing, albeit maybe a bit off topic.] What all things computer related has needed from day one is a way of pronouncing ("reading out loud") hexadecimal. My first computer was a 6502, and I've resented numbers larger than FF since then (been working with AMD Opterons for a couple of years now, disturbing). If you print and read in hex, you don't need dots or any other syntactic aids, the human eye/brain can easily group the requisite number of digits, at least for the time being. The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with no inherent and natural feel for what we're taling about. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 24E (two-four-E) tonnes. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 590 (five hundred and ninety) tonnes. Solve that, and we don't need any new notations beyond subtle groupings, just like we group thousands and millions in decimal notation. - Per
On a related note, but not directly on the topic of the format of 4 Byte AS numbers, I prepared some notes about the view of 4-Byte AS numbers from the perspective of the 2-Byte AS realm, in the format of a presentation. These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience: http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-11-asns.pdf thanks, Geoff
At 08:34 AM 11-10-06 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
On a related note, but not directly on the topic of the format of 4 Byte AS numbers, I prepared some notes about the view of 4-Byte AS numbers from the perspective of the 2-Byte AS realm, in the format of a presentation.
These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience: http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-11-asns.pdf
Thanks! It would be very helpful if you could add slides indicating which Cisco and Juniper versions support NEW_AS_PATH. -Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il
These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience: http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-11-asns.pdf
Thanks! It would be very helpful if you could add slides indicating which Cisco and Juniper versions support NEW_AS_PATH.
That's a good point Hank, thanks! It would be very helpful to me if any of the Cisco and / or Juniper folk on this mailing list provided me with this information, assuming of course that they want / are comfortable with this information being included in this material. thanks, Geoff
On 10 Oct 2006, at 22:54, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
[This isn't meant to be flippant or anything else of the kind, it's a genuinely heartfelt thing, albeit maybe a bit off topic.]
What all things computer related has needed from day one is a way of pronouncing ("reading out loud") hexadecimal. My first computer was a 6502, and I've resented numbers larger than FF since then (been working with AMD Opterons for a couple of years now, disturbing).
If you print and read in hex, you don't need dots or any other syntactic aids, the human eye/brain can easily group the requisite number of digits, at least for the time being.
The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with no inherent and natural feel for what we're taling about.
An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 24E (two-four-E) tonnes. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 590 (five hundred and ninety) tonnes.
Solve that, and we don't need any new notations beyond subtle groupings, just like we group thousands and millions in decimal notation.
- Per
This is so, so off topic it's not true. I started this as an off-list reply to Per but I'm so pleased with my solution that I can't help sharing it. Take the solution from natural languages. Most languages I speak (or have a smattering of) have a regular or semi-regular way of pronouncing numbers. Single digit numbers have a unique name. 10 (the base) has a unique name. Numbers from 11 to 19 have a name with a suffix and a sound similar to the terminating digit usually with a break from the rule for 11 and 12. (nine, nineteen) (fünf, fünfzehn) We'd regularize that and not have Two digit numbers with a zero in the lowest position have a name using, again, suffix and a similar sound to the name of the single significant digit involved. (four, fourty) (vier, vierzig) 100 has a unique name. 1000 has a unique name. Multiples of either are said <digit name> <multiplier name>. That's enough rules apart from the rules for combining all the above rules. So, we just need:- 1) Unique names for all the single digit numbers. 2) A unique name for the base. 3) A suffix sound for 1x form numbers. 4) A suffix sound for x0 form numbers. 5) As many unique names for x00000... form numbers as we feel we need. 6) A combining rule(s). So: 1) Use the english names for 0..9. A..F may need new names if combined versions sound too similar to the compound forms. 2) 0x10 = hen 3) Use the suffix -heen for 0x11 .. 0x1f 4) Use the suffix -he for 0xX0 5) 0x100 = hexdred, 0x1000 = hexdrend 6) use the english combining rules 7) Try lots of combinations and then revisit 1. e.g 0xA0 becomes 'Aye'-he which sounds too much like eighty for comfort; so A may need a new name. So: 0x5432 = five hexdrend, four hexdred and thirhe two. 0x1017 = one hexdrend and sevenheen 0x10000 = hen hexdrend Happy counting, Ian
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:54:03 BST, Per Gregers Bilse said:
The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with no inherent and natural feel for what we're taling about.
An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 24E (two-four-E) tonnes. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 590 (five hundred and ninety) tonnes.
I've seen somebody pronounce C48C as 'ceety four hundred and eighty cee' - and the person listening grokked it. aety, beety, ceety, deety, eety, effty. aety and eighty are a bit too similar, unfortunately. The thousands/millions probably comes easier to those of us who did a lot of octal work - the newcomers seem to like to clump hex numbers in clumps of 2 and 4.
On Oct 11, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:54:03 BST, Per Gregers Bilse said:
The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with no inherent and natural feel for what we're talking about.
An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 24E (two-four-E) tonnes. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 590 (five hundred and ninety) tonnes.
I've seen somebody pronounce C48C as 'ceety four hundred and eighty cee' - and the person listening grokked it. aety, beety, ceety, deety, eety, effty. aety and eighty are a bit too similar, unfortunately.
There is also a convention defined at- 'x' prefix/suffix convention for pronouncing hexadecimal numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal -Doug
participants (6)
-
Douglas Otis -
Geoff Huston -
Hank Nussbacher -
Ian Mason -
Per Gregers Bilse -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu