On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 02:29:37PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Seriously, 6 different ways to notate a MAC address...
> Nope, this isn't actionable, but thank you for letting me vent!
TBH, RFC 6021:
typedef mac-address {
type string {
pattern '[0-9a-fA-F]{2}(:[0-9a-fA-F]{2}){5}';
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:33 AM Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Daniel Shaw wrote on 10/08/2018 08:29:
> > I think that on closer examination you may find the AFRINIC whois also
> > changed around the same timeframe, perhaps a year later. It seems that
> > there may be one (or possibly some other very
Daniel Shaw wrote on 10/08/2018 08:29:
I think that on closer examination you may find the AFRINIC whois also
changed around the same timeframe, perhaps a year later. It seems that
there may be one (or possibly some other very small number of) test
objects that did not get converted/clean-up.
Gert Doering wrote on 06/08/2018 23:08:
It totally wrecked my nice AS3.3 into an ugly large number, but there
was strong enough pushing that I was overruled.
asdot was something that seemed like a good idea until the day that
someone tried to use it in production :-|
Nick
this was a major war some time back. it might be fun to do it sgain.
randy
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 22:08, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:55:47PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> > If people agree that a doc discouraging the use of asdot should exist,
> > please let me know.
>
> Nick might remember where the push came from that made "RIPE" (the
> community,
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:55:47PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> If people agree that a doc discouraging the use of asdot should exist,
> please let me know.
Nick might remember where the push came from that made "RIPE" (the
community, the NCC, the RIPE DB) change from ASDOT to ASPLAIN.
It
Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 20:35:
I'm not the biggest fan of that philosophy. Especially because in the
milions of objecst that exist in the combined IRR databases, it appears
only four of them have something with ASDOT in the wrong place.
right, you didn't mention that the 4 affected
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 20:53, Christopher Morrow <
christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:36 AM Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:26:41PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Job Snijders
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:36 AM Job Snijders wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:26:41PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > >
> > > Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 14:22>
> > >> RFC 5396 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:26:41PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >
> > Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 14:22>
> >> RFC 5396 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the "asdot+"
> >> and "asdot" representation formats for AS numbers. I'd
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 14:22> RFC 5396
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the "asdot+" and
>> "asdot" representation formats for AS numbers.
>> I'd personally prefer a single canonical way to represent ASNs
>>
Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 14:22> RFC 5396
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the "asdot+" and
"asdot" representation formats for AS numbers.
I'd personally prefer a single canonical way to represent ASNs
(asplain), and while RFC 5396 proposes the adoption of a decimal value
Dear WG,
RFC 5396 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the "asdot+" and
"asdot" representation formats for AS numbers.
I'd personally prefer a single canonical way to represent ASNs
(asplain), and while RFC 5396 proposes the adoption of a decimal value
notation 'asplain', I don't think
14 matches
Mail list logo
