North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...

  • From: Larry Blunk
  • Date: Tue Oct 10 10:23:52 2006

Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 13:34 10/10/2006, [email protected] wrote:

My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation
for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be
checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone
who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to
do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers,
not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that
somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools.
I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument.  I suggest you
make it to the IESG before they decide.


   RFC2622 uses the following Flex macro for AS numbers --

INT            [[:digit:]]+
ASNO        AS{INT}

  Note that this does not limit the length of the AS number.   While
it's no guarantee that an RPSL tool wouldn't break with longer AS
numbers, it would seem less likely than with the "." notation.

-Larry Blunk