nanog mailing list archives
AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
From: "Gunther Stammwitz" <gstammw () gmx net>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:29:11 +0200
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notationfor ASnumsgreater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, notupdated. Ifyour tool was written by someone who left the company 7years ago thenyou might want to do such checking by simply testing it withlarge asnumbers, 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
Current thread:
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering..., (continued)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Joe Abley (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael Shields (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... David W. Hankins (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... william(at)elan.net (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Michael . Dillon (Oct 10)
- Message not available
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Henk Uijterwaal (Oct 10)
- AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Gunther Stammwitz (Oct 10)
- Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering... Larry Blunk (Oct 10)
- 4-Byte ASNs from the perspective of the 2-Byte world Geoff Huston (Oct 10)
- Re: 4-Byte ASNs from the perspective of the 2-Byte world Hank Nussbacher (Oct 11)
- Re: 4-Byte ASNs from the perspective of the 2-Byte world Geoff Huston (Oct 11)