Russ White <r...@cisco.com> wrote: > [Christopher Morrow <christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:] >> [Russ White wrote:] > >>> I could go on giving examples, but to state, "BGP's semantic is that the >>> AS Path represents the path through which the update has traveled," is >>> simply untrue. >> >> eh... but it is. one more time around the mulberry bush? > > It's not. The AS Path is to prove the path is loop free. It was never > intended to prove where the update went in the network.
Please try to excuse me for interrupting a perfectly good flame-war... IMHO, Russ is being careful in what he says, but Chris isn't. The plain fact is, Chris made a perfectly reasonable post: " " On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Russ White <r...@cisco.com> wrote: " "> If you're going to say, "secure the semantics," then secure all of them. "> If you're going to say, "secure the data," then figure out what matters "> in terms of how the data looks, and secure that. " " what matters: AS-PATH " how it looks: every AS which sees this route, and propogates it to " external peers, attests to that fact. ... alas, not being as careful as I would wish about what he wrote... I interpreted to be in response to the last two lines of Russ, and say: " " What matters is the AS_PATH; it gives us every AS which sees this NLRI; " propagating it to external peers attests to this fact already. He did not say anything about how to validate that so as to place confidence in the AS_PATH for loop detection, least of all some of the other things we're looking for. Thus, I decided against responding to it right away, hoping somebody would lead the discussion in that direction... -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
