On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:29 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Any new design would have necessarily required more bits to
address more end systems. Making legacy systems interact with
these additional addressing bits without some form of gateway, NAT
or other translation would indeed be challenging. You're
literally trying to expand the size of the namespace that a legacy
implementation will recognize.
32 bit AS numbers.
Fortunately, the legacy BGP implementations don't need to recognize
the new part of the namespace. They only see the legacy space,
including AS_TRANS. The new namespace is translated (with major
amounts of information loss) into the old namespace for their
benefit. This still doesn't provide a mechanism for legacy systems
to interact directly with new systems. For example, you can't have a
legacy system directly peer with a system using a 32 bit AS number.
Instead, it has to be remapped to AS_TRANS.
So, it's just NAT for BGP. ;-)
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf