North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number PolicyProposal

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Fri Dec 16 02:55:25 2005

Actually, for actual implementation, there are subtle differences between
AS 0x0002 ans AS 0x00000002.  True, they are the same AS in 16 and 32 bit
representation, and, for allocation policy, they are the same, but, in
actual router guts, there are limited circumstances where you might actually
care which one you are talking about.


--On December 15, 2005 1:45:20 PM -0500 Todd Vierling <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> That's an example of the lack of plain English in the
> proposal. Why don't we just talk about AS numbers greater
> than 65535 or AS numbers less than 65536?

Because there is more to it than just that.  :)
No, there isn't.  AS numbers are integers.  It just so happens that there
are now two representations of said integers with different domain bounds.

Any other interpretation simply adds too much confusion.  After all, "2
byte AS2" vs. "4 byte AS2" implies *more than* 4 bytes -- because you have
to use metadata beyond the 4 bytes to represent which "type" of AS you

If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.

Attachment: pgp00008.pgp
Description: PGP signature