[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 ]