AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
gstammw at gmx.net
Tue Oct 10 12:29:11 UTC 2006
> >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.
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 :-)
More information about the NANOG