On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Actually, for actual implementation, there are subtle differences between
> AS 0x0002 ans AS 0x0002. True, they are the same AS in 16 and 32 bit
> representation, and, for allocation policy, they are the same, but, in
> actual router guts, there are
Actually, for actual implementation, there are subtle differences between
AS 0x0002 ans AS 0x0002. True, they are the same AS in 16 and 32 bit
representation, and, for allocation policy, they are the same, but, in
actual router guts, there are limited circumstances where you might actually
ca
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > That's an example of the lack of plain English in the
> > proposal. Why don't we just talk about AS numbers greater
> > than 65535 or AS numbers less than 65536?
>
> Because there is more to it than just that. :)
No, there isn't. AS numbers are int
> > That's an example of the lack of plain English in the
> > proposal. Why don't we just talk about AS numbers greater
> > than 65535 or AS numbers less than 65536?
>
> Because there is more to it than just that. :)
>
> there is the matter of whether they are represented by 2 bytes, or 4
byt
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 14 04:30:07 2005
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:32:06 +
> Subject: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number
> Policy Proposal
>
> > I'm also not th
