Dear Jeff, On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 08:28:27AM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:26:02AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 05:17:08PM +0000, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote: > > > Please let us also know if you would have interest in providing an > > > implementation. > > > > Perhaps it is worthwhile adding a suggestion to the document for BGP > > stack vendors to make it super easy to reject BGP routes that contain an > > AS_SET anywhere in the AS_PATH? > > That's intended to be covered by the first paragraph of section 3: > : BGP speakers conforming to this document (i.e., conformant BGP speakers) > : SHOULD NOT locally generate BGP UPDATE messages containing AS_SETs or > : AS_CONFED_SETs. Conformant BGP speakers SHOULD NOT send BGP UPDATE messages > : containing AS_SETs or AS_CONFED_SETs. Upon receipt of such messages, > : conformant BGP speakers SHOULD use the "treat-as-withdraw" error handling > : behavior as per [RFC7606].
Thanks for highlighting that section, that's the gist of it in terms of desired outcome, (and why I'd be in favor of progressing this document). > I know you want to say "add a knob", but we generally try to avoid talking > about the knobs in IDR specs. Understandably. I can see how the suggestion is somewhat superfluous. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
