nanog mailing list archives
Re: RPSL announcement text
From: David Kessens <david () Qwest com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 17:22:35 -0700
Simon, On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:28:46PM +0000, Simon Lockhart wrote:
More to the point, if there's such a Y2k problem with this software/protocol/format, then why aren't RIPE (the original authors) running around changing to RPSL?
Because they already fixed RIPE-181 and made the rather trivial change from a 6 digit date field to a 8 digit date field some time back. This is not to say that it doesn't make sense for them to switch to RPSL, but Y2K issues are not the thing that requires them to do so. David K. ---
Current thread:
- RPSL announcement text Gerald Andrew Winters (Dec 07)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 07)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Patrick Evans (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Gerald Andrew Winters (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Simon Lockhart (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Randy Bush (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text David Kessens (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RPSL announcement text Sean Donelan (Dec 08)
- Re[2]: RPSL announcement text chuck_metzger (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Sean Donelan (Dec 08)
- Re: RPSL announcement text Joao Luis Silva Damas (Dec 09)