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 ]
Paul Jakma
paul at clubi.ie
Fri Dec 7 19:56:48 CET 2007
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > I fully agree for the real world. Here it seems that RIRs and some of > the vendors use asdot(+), so a safe bet would be to use that. You've left out the operators, *all* of whom are going to audit all their all their configuration state and update any string-form filters of ASNs. There's no point revisting the arguments though, so let's try avoid classifications like the above. A decision would indeed be nice. Given "asdot" is a fait accompli, by way of unmandated implementation, and there's little will to turn this barge back to port, why not write up and approve whatever policy documents are required? regards, -- Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A Fortune: I don't know who my grandfather was; I am much more concerned to know what his grandson will be. -- Abraham Lincoln
- 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 ]