On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 08:54:25PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <dudu.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> > > wrote: > >> On 2011-05-27, Eduardo Meyer <dudu.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Is there a way bgpctl will produce run-time information not using > >>> asdot format? > >> > >> Not at present, OpenBGP only accepts as-plain for input, it always > >> outputs as-dot. > > Re-reading this sentence I see it's badly written; I meant it as > "the only place OpenBGP accepts as-plain is for input" but I'll > rephrase to make it totally clear: > > Currently OpenBGP accepts either format for input, but it always > outputs as-dot. > > >> I think we should probably change this, rfc5396 came out a couple > >> of years ago and pretty much everyone is using as-plain now. (Even > >> though 3.10 looks far nicer than 196618 ;)
I still prefer 3.10. At least it tells me quickly from which RIR the AS is from. And it looks nicer. > > > > Yeah, I agree, but the world seems to prefer plain 4byte (maybe they can > > read). > > I think it's largely because a lot of people are using regular > expressions over AS paths to set routing policy and the .'s are > going to mess things up there. Yes, network admins seem to be unable to write correct regular expressions. No T-Shirt from them. Or maybe we should make on: "move out of the way, I don't know regular expressions" > > BTW I have read in many Cisco[1] documents that asdot is made up of > > [1]http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6554/ps6599/white_paper_c11_516829.html > > > > (PART1 * 65535) + PART2 > > ["1" * 65535] + "10" = 65546 > > err...wow. > > > However OpenBGP does the math as ((PART1 * 65535) + PART2) + PART1. > > Or, put another way, part1*65536 + part2 (though it's actually written > as the more efficient `$$ = uval | (uvalh << 16)' in the parser). Yep. All the multiplication is way to complex. -- :wq Claudio
