* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorenzo Colitti) [Fri 04 Mar 2005, 00:09 CET]: > David Schwartz wrote: >> Every piece of BGP documentation I have ever seen says that this >> attribute documents the ASes that the route has actually passed >> through. > I think the above paragraph of RFC 1771 disagrees with you.
Please quote properly; the context was AS_path, not AS_set. David Schwartz was right on the mark here. >> You certainly need their permission before you can advertise routes >> that falsely came to have passed through their network! And yes, I >> would argue that you do need permission to attach someone else's >> community string to your routes and that it would be considered at >> least terribly bad manners to use undocumented community strings from >> other people's ASes. (Documentation, of course, equates to permission.) This latter half is nonsense. A community is a 32-bit number with no guarantee of uniqueness; it's up to some kind-hearted fellow network operators to act upon certain `magical' values (apart from well-known ones as no-announce and no-export, of course) that they may have described in an object's remarks in some IRR's database. ASNs are uniquely assigned to autonomous systems; preloading other AS_paths than your own in an advertisement should be frowned upon (just like adding fake Path: entries to your Usenet postings, or adding Received: headers to e-mail if the e-mail in question did not pass through those systems). -- Niels. -- The idle mind is the devil's playground