[ppml] Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
tme at multicasttech.com
Tue Dec 13 23:57:56 EST 2005
I would not prefer hex. How many different ways do we need to
describe 32 bit numbers ? Are we going to
mix hex and decimal with old and new ASN numbers ?
I do like the <second 16 bits>.<last 16 bits> notation if there is
going to be any aggregation of ASN numbers, which it seems like there
will be. In that case, though, why not use CIDR notation ? It seems
like the proposal
includes giving each RIR a /16 ASN block - I wonder if geographic
based addressing models will start asking for ASN blocks (say, a /15
to give one ASN for each US zip code) ?
On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:48 PM, David Kessens wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:14:58PM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>> my mistake - I did mean 16 bit separation - I just didn't type it!
>> ok - unless I hear to the contrary I'll run with the notation
>> e.g. 10.1
> I would prefer hex notation for the numbers. When numbers get larger,
> the ASCII version gets longer and longer. Hex could compress it's size
> considerably and we might even want to skip the '.' altogether.
> David Kessens
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML