Geoff: Sorry about the previous email with an incomplete message. I hit some key accidentally and off it went :(
As you know, the following email messages between you, Chris and myself are relevant to your 08-rev as well. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02020.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02017.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg02015.html Consistent with the above messages, I would like to suggest removing the algorithmic aspects of how to handle updates with AS_SET. Instead wording along the lines (you may fine tune the wording) should be included: It is recognized that in a very small percentage of updates, proxy aggregation with inclusion AS_SET attribute is found. There is a proposal under consideration in the IDR WG to deprecate AS_SETs. Description of the part of the algorithm that deals with origin validation of updates with AS_SET is deferred pending outcome of the IDR WG action on this issue. Sriram > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Christopher > Morrow > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 4:58 PM > To: Geoff Huston > Cc: Sandra Murphy; [email protected] wg > Subject: Re: [sidr] WG LC request for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-08.txt > > This was sent along (the requested LC message) to the list today... > see you in 2 weeks (at decision time) > > -chris > (wg-co-chair-cycling-shoes == on) > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let me try that once again! > > > > The authors have revised the text relating to the definition of the origin > > AS to be > conformant to the current BGP specification, namely that if the AGGREGATOR > path > attribute is present it "contains the last AS number that formed the > aggregate route" > [RFC4271]. If this path attribute is not present the draft defines the origin > AS as the AS > preceding the AS_SET, which is a definition that has been drawn from the > earlier WG mail > thread on this topic > > > > The intention here is not to impose criteria that differ from RFC4271, and > > define the > origin AS in an manner that if an AS undertakes proxy aggregation in > conformance with > RFC4271 then this definition of origin AS will correctly identify the > aggregator AS as the > origin AS. This is slightly different from the various suggestions seen so > far on the WG > mailing list, but it is believed that this refines those suggestions in the > light of a careful > reading of the relevant sections of RFC 4271. > > > > The authors do not plan any further revisions of this document, and, > > accordingly, would > like once more to request a WG Last Call of the -08 rev of the document. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
