On 5 Oct 2016, at 2:10, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> this proposal seems a bit complex, it doesn't appear to be required to be so > complex, The only complexity is the mapping. It would be nice to have something simpler that people can do in their head but I don't see how that can work and leave more than one digit for the nn part. And if it can't be simple enough to do in your head it doesn't really matter how complex the calculation is. In use it's extremely simple: if your BGP implementation supports this, simply use AS:nn. If it doesn't, look up the mapping between the 32-bit AS:nn and the 16-bit AS:nn and put the 16-bit version in your configuration. > Why pay complexity tax today for something that will be obsolete in ~2yrs > time? It won't be. You can't really use a new extended attribute until virtually everyone supports it. That's going to take much longer than two years. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
