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

[Joe Abley <jabley at ca.afilias.info>]

On 11-Oct-2006, at 08:41, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Note that there is significant resistance to this on the NANOG  
> list, and although this resistance is criticized, nobody is  
> actually speaking up in favor of the draft under consideration.

This was also my observation.

I don't believe I have heard a convincing argument as to why  
HHHH.LLLL is a useful representation, and I've heard plausible  
concern that it is a bad idea.

The overwhelming feedback I heard in St Louis (as well as on the  
list) was that a simple decimal representation of the 32-bit quantity  
was the preferred notation. I have heard nobody point out any  
concerns with that approach.

Regardless of which notation is chosen, it still seems useful to have  
the canonical representation documented.


Joe



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