> From: Murphy, Sandra [mailto:sandra.mur...@sparta.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:04 PM > To: George, Wes; sidr@ietf.org > Subject: RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05 > > The use of pcount=0 was hoped/expected to require NO changes in the > update validation algorithm. If you have discovered places where it > would require changes, it will indeed be interesting to see and discuss.
[WEG] use of pcount=0 for AS migration may not require changes to the *algorithm* itself, as much as it will simply require discussion of the process for handling pcount=0 in the cases where it is used and the neighbor is not a transparent route-server, since currently that case is discussed specifically in the draft, and there is a specific recommendation that pcount=0 updates be dropped if they didn't come from a known route-server neighbor. That said, I'm not convinced it completely solves the problem, as I (hopefully) articulated in my pending draft, and *that* may require algorithm changes. Wes This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
