Re: Call for action vs. lost opportunity (Was: Re: Renumbering)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Oct 9, 2007, at 11:29 AM, David Conrad wrote:

On Oct 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Tony Li wrote:
Any new design would have necessarily required more bits to address more end systems. Making legacy systems interact with these additional addressing bits without some form of gateway, NAT or other translation would indeed be challenging. You're literally trying to expand the size of the namespace that a legacy implementation will recognize.

32 bit AS numbers.


Fortunately, the legacy BGP implementations don't need to recognize the new part of the namespace. They only see the legacy space, including AS_TRANS. The new namespace is translated (with major amounts of information loss) into the old namespace for their benefit. This still doesn't provide a mechanism for legacy systems to interact directly with new systems. For example, you can't have a legacy system directly peer with a system using a 32 bit AS number. Instead, it has to be remapped to AS_TRANS.

So, it's just NAT for BGP.  ;-)

Tony

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]