that 4byte ASN you were considering...
ljb at merit.edu
Tue Oct 10 14:21:49 UTC 2006
Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> At 13:34 10/10/2006, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>> 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.
RFC2622 uses the following Flex macro for AS numbers --
Note that this does not limit the length of the AS number. While
it's no guarantee that an RPSL tool wouldn't break with longer AS
numbers, it would seem less likely than with the "." notation.
More information about the NANOG