On 5/08/2016, 1:39 AM, "David Farmer" <[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>]. OK. > > >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. > .. is why I asked. I'm fine to see that side stepped as being out of scope, but the usage success may well vary depending on 2 byte and 4 byte ASNs given the IANA pool for 2 byte has been exhausted, but I would urge GROW to consider some future work item to look at these implications. I'll let it pass for now. Cheers Terry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
