Re: [Idr] Re: Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation)

[Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>]

On 10/09/06 at 11:09pm -0500, Joe Abley <jabley at ca.afilias.info> wrote:

> On 9-Oct-2006, at 15:11, John Leslie wrote:
>
> >    And there's a particularly obvious alternative: simply continuing
> > the decimal notation used now. We've already adapted to five-digit
> > decimal numbers without a whimper: is there really any reason to
> > believe six digits will prove unworkable?
>
> But then how do you distinguish between a 2-byte only AS number and a
> 4-byte AS number which happens to be less than 0.65535?

There is no meaningful distinction, is there?  The only distinctions I can
see are for understanding how they'll work for backwards compatibility,
and "less than 65535" seems adequate for that.

I'm agnostic to which notation we should use, but I don't think it matters
all that much, as long as we avoid confusing ourselves.

-Scott



_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr