On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Christopher Morrow < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Terry Manderson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 4/08/2016, 12:11 PM, "Christopher Morrow" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> .... > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >COMMENT: >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >>From a comment point of view, this informational document is agnostic on >> >any operational differences between 2-byte and 4-byte ASNs. Is that >> >intentional? Are there any operational differences worth calling out in >> >regard to using extended communities etc? >> > >> >> Any feedback on the comment? >> >> > nope, I think extended communities with 4byte-asn is a problem though :( > > A Well-Known RFC1997 community, that this document is defining, is usable with both 2-byte and 4-byte ASNs. Therefore if anything, that is another advantage to defining a Well-Known community over the use of ASN specific communities described in [RFC3882 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3882>] and [RFC5635 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5635>]. There are most definitely general operational issues with 4byte-ASNs and extended and ASN specific RFC1997 communities, however those more general issues are mostly out of scope of this document. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
