This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
tp
ripe at dial.pipex.com
Fri Dec 7 12:12:03 CET 2007
Not sure if you aware but there is an IETF Internet Draft winging its way through the system on this topic, namely http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-05. txt It did get discussed on the IETF idr list in October 2006, and met significant resistance. There were also comments then about NANOG taking a position on this. I haven't seen any discussion since. Current status is Application Director Watching Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Evans" <rhe at nosc.ja.net> To: <routing-wg at ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:59 PM Subject: [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation > Folks, > > One of the items that was discussed during the working group meeting > in Amsterdam was the relative benefits of using asplain, asdot or > asdot+ to represent four byte autonomous system numbers. The chairs > feel that the discussion tended towards favouring asdot/asdot+, which > is already used relatively widely, but with the note that people do > need to review their in-house tools and scripts to ensure they will > work with numbers expressed in this notation. > > Cheers, > Rob >
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg]Four byte ASN notation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]