[92741] in North American Network Operators' Group
AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gunther Stammwitz)
Tue Oct 10 08:31:03 2006
From: "Gunther Stammwitz" <gstammw@gmx.net>
To: "'Henk Uijterwaal'" <henk@ripe.net>,
<Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:29:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20061010135253.0354ab90@ripe.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>
> >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
