This was brought up at the open mic, and people just shrugged. I agree that this does not sound like a solution, but at the same time it did not move the community to reconsider their direction.
__Jason On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:32 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jason Schiller <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The ARIN community continues to suggest there is no hardware reason that > > would prevent support of 4-byte ASNs. The community desires that we use > up > > the 2-byte ASNs and continue to send a message that code upgrades to > support > > 4-byte ASNs are now required. > > > Question: > > Large ISPs implement BGP communities with a convention of 16-bit ASN > followed by 16-bits of locally defined meaning, such as set local pref > to 80. > > Does a comparable convention exist when dealing with 32-bit ASNs? If > not, what's the plan? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
