> On Sep 26, 2019, at 6:43 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
>
> This is nice, but what would make it more useful would be if it also
> reported if there are *useful* AS_SETS / if the AS_SET means anything.
>
> For example, from Jared's email below:
> AS path: 14061 3356 6762 23487 27738 27738 27738 27738 27738 27738
> {27738} -- the 27738 AS already shows up as a non-AS_SET in the path.
This one is on the buggy end of things, but still reasonably valid. It smells
like something that passed through remove-private of some flavor.
>
> I've also seen a number of instances where the AS_SET contains many
> repeated instances, e.g:
> AS path: 6939 3356 42020 39010 {39275 39275 39275 39275 39275 39275
> 39275 39275 39275 39275} -- this doesn't seem to actually mean
> anything...
This one seems very buggy. The protocol still knows what to do with it.
It'd be interesting to find out what code these folk are running. Hopefully not
one of my bugs. :-)
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
