| Subject: | Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation |
|---|---|
| From: | Iljitsch van Beijnum |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:03:51 +0200 |
On 11-okt-2006, at 22:32, Curtis Villamizar wrote: How the protocol encodes an atribute does not impact how that attribute is displayed in the CLI and therefore how or whether an RE syntax could be used in policy statements. I don't understand how these statements relate to the discussion at hand. _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list Idr@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation), Iljitsch van Beijnum |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation), Curtis Villamizar |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation), Curtis Villamizar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers' to Informational RFC (draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation), Curtis Villamizar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |