Erik Romijn writes: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:46:36AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote: [...] >> My assumption is that implementations would move to >> using the BGP4MP_ENTRY type for table dumps as it was meant >> to replace the TABLE_DUMP type. The BGP4MP_ENTRY header >> does not encode an AS number in the header and is transparent to >> 32-bit AS numbers. I guess I could either create a new >> TABLE_DUMP_32BIT_AS type or add text referring to the >> BGP4MP_ENTRY type for 32-bit AS support.
> I am in favour of TABLE_DUMP_32BIT_AS. I don't see any real > advantage to moving to BGP4MP_ENTRY and do see significant extra > work to modify software. One advantage of BGP4MP_ENTRY is that it includes the SAFI value. It is otherwise very similar to TABLE_DUMP, so I don't see how the extra work would be that much more significant than the work to implement the TABLE_DUMP_32BIT_AS that you propose. > Also, it wouldn't hurt to add TABLE_DUMP_32BIT_AS, would it? Well, not if you have it already, but if not it's more code... -- Simon. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
