George, Wes <wesley.geo...@twcable.com> wrote: > > I'm thinking that we need a comment early in the draft stating that > for the remainder of the draft no distinction is being made between > AS_PATH and AS4_PATH,
I wouldn't phrase it that way -- I'd emphasize instead that the AS Path being validated is the AS Path _after_ reconstruction using AS4_PATH in the case where routing information comes from a peer which doesn't recognize 4-byte ASNs. (It would be simply wrong to "validate" AS4_PATH in the case where you don't also do the reconstruction, or in the protocol-violating case where you receive AS4_PATH from a peer which does speak 4-byte ASNs.) > Or alternatively, specify that this validation is performed on > AS4_PATH That would also be wrong. :^( > and require support for 4893 as a prerequisite for SIDR. IMHO, support for 4-byte ASNs should be a prerequisite. Alas, this _does_ need to be stated. > If we don't explicitly require hosts that support SIDR origin > validation to support 4-byte ASN, we may also need some direction > regarding specific handling for AS23456, It would be good to add that anyway, since I contend that we can't be sure AS23456 will always be removed. -- John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
