On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:39 AM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > oy! precoffee mails :( yes, thanks! so then 'no comment on comment'.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
