On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using >>> asdot format? >> >> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always >> outputs as-dot.
Re-reading this sentence I see it's badly written; I meant it as "the only place OpenBGP accepts as-plain is for input" but I'll rephrase to make it totally clear: Currently OpenBGP accepts either format for input, but it always outputs as-dot. >> I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple >> of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even >> though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;) > > Yeah, I agree, but the world seems to prefer plain 4byte (maybe they can > read). I think it's largely because a lot of people are using regular expressions over AS paths to set routing policy and the .'s are going to mess things up there. > BTW I have read in many Cisco[1] documents that asdot is made up of > [1]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/white_paper_c11_516829.html > > (PART1 * 65535) + PART2 ["1" * 65535] + "10" = 65546 err...wow. > However OpenBGP does the math as ((PART1 * 65535) + PART2) + PART1. Or, put another way, part1*65536 + part2 (though it's actually written as the more efficient `$$ = uval | (uvalh << 16)' in the parser).
