On 10 Oct 2006, at 22:54, Per Gregers Bilse wrote:
[This isn't meant to be flippant or anything else of the kind, it's
a genuinely heartfelt thing, albeit maybe a bit off topic.]
What all things computer related has needed from day one is a way
of pronouncing (reading out loud) hexadecimal.
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:54:03 BST, Per Gregers Bilse said:
The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the
damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with
no inherent and natural feel for what we're taling about.
An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of
On Oct 11, 2006, at 9:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:54:03 BST, Per Gregers Bilse said:
The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the
damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number,
with no inherent and natural feel for what
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing?
It
At 10:44 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation
Using '.' as a delimiter will be somewhat annoying when used in
regular expressions and likely to induce errors. Would '-' be a
better choice?
somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad
representation.
randy
Well, it will break an applications that considers everything
consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse
mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then
treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address.
An application using [0123456789.]* will not break
At 13:34 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation
for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be
checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone
who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to
do such checking
somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad
representation.
true but we don't typically user them in regex expressions as much
(at least I haven't). Its more masks and inverted masks...
Regards,
Neil.
--
Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking - Team Hong Nor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation
for ASnums
greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not
updated. If
your tool was written by someone who left the company 7
years ago then
you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with
large
Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 13:34 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation
for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be
checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone
who left the company 7 years ago then you might
At 9:44 +0100 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It breaks any applications which recognize IP address-like
objects by seeing a dot in an otherwise numeric token.
I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot.
We all know that the Internet is awash in homegrown scripts
written in
I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot.
they are not. but they have enough free time on their hands
to endlessly discuss a dot.
randy
On 2006-10-10 09:41:37, Edward Lewis wrote:
I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot.
People have been burned in the past, and this leads them to exaggerate the
cost. But even if the cost is not as large as they fear, it is not zero.
If you are in favor of a new notation because
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it will break an applications that considers everything
consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse
mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then
treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:59:22AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad
representation.
Or domain names.
I'm concerned by the kind of discussion I'm seeing here.
RFC's are not law, and if your router vendor adopts this informational
document in
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Kevin Loch wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt as an Informational
RFC
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems
On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote:
But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of
role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly
not to fulfill.
It's not so weird when you realise that the notation adopted has an
impact on other IETF work (RPSL
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:53:53PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote:
But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of
role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly
not to fulfill.
It's not so weird when you realise that the
On 2006-10-10 13:41:42, David W. Hankins wrote:
It is weird, to me, that people who have concerns about their
router's configuration syntax expect to be able to take this up
with the IETF, rather than their router manufacturer.
Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express
[This isn't meant to be flippant or anything else of the kind, it's
a genuinely heartfelt thing, albeit maybe a bit off topic.]
What all things computer related has needed from day one is a way
of pronouncing (reading out loud) hexadecimal. My first computer
was a 6502, and I've resented
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:54PM +, Michael Shields wrote:
Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express
four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a
Totally, and I would be surprised if that were not the eventual
outcome. In the absence of any
FYI... ifyou think you have an opinion about this, it might be worth a read
before the IESG dictates how you can use/code these badboys...
-
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt as an Informational RFC
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing?
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt as an
Informational RFC
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing?
Using
25 matches
Mail list logo
