On 29-Nov-2006, at 12:14, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
On 29-Nov-2006, at 08:30, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
Michael(_dot_)Dillon(_at_)btradianz(_dot_)com wrote:
On the NANOG list it has already been pointed out that a lot
of network management software cannot handle such notation and
in some cases, 1.0 could be interpreted as the IP address
1.0.0.0. It has been confirmed that one widely used PERL library
interprets x.y as IP address x.0.0.y.
I think this is a bug.
If it is, it's a very long-standing one. For example, see INET(3)
which I think is of 4.2BSD vintage, and which appears to have
similar semantics to the mentioned perl library:
I fail to see that as being stopping point.
I didn't suggest it was. I was just responding to the thought that
the interpretation of x.y as x.0.0.y has some history.
The draft above received significant operator criticism.
The consensus I saw on NANOGm, for example, was that there was (a)
no useful reason to be able to distinguish between a 16-bit AS
number and a 32-bit AS number less than 65536, (b) no good reason
to use punctuation to separate the most- and least-significant 16
bits of the 32-bit ASN, and (c) every reason to think that the
most sensible representation was just "bigger decimal numbers".
I did not see any consensus on that issue when it was brought to
NANOG-m.
Interesting. I didn't notice any support for separating the 32-bit
quantity into two sections, but I remember many people decrying the
need for any separator at all.
The principal argument against "." specifically was that it will
instantly break all deployed AS_PATH regular expressions (or at
least, potentially cause regex comparisons to provide surprising
results).
I'm not making an argument for against ggm's draft (although I can if
that seems useful :-) I was merely passing on my memory of the NANOG
thread.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf