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

[Vince Fuller <vaf at cisco.com>]

> In terms of resource allocation, it seems to me that you only have to  
> deal with 32-bit numbers, and no distinction is necessary.
> 
> In terms of presentation to an operator, e.g. as part of a "show"  
> command, it also seems like whatever is simplest and easier on the  
> eye wins.
> 
> (I would note that on cisco routers it's perfectly possible to view  
> community string attributes as simple 32-bit numbers, but everybody  
> seems to prefer the representation of two 16-bit values separated by  
> a colon.)

That's because a convention has evolved to structure the community as two
16-bit values, with specific semantic meanings attached to them.

Similarly, the dotted-quad notation for IP addresses once made sense because
class-A/B/C networks assigned structure to the octets.

IMHO, displaying 32-bit ASNs as "x.y" would be a mistake as it would imply
that some structure exists.

	--Vince

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