North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days
> >>So, given these considerations, is everyone announcing an AS-set > >>announcing "routes that falsely claim to have passed through another > >>autonymous system"? > > > > Yes. From RFC1771: > Ok, so if everyone announcing an AS-set is announcing "routes that > falsely claim to have passed through another autonymous system", and you > are saying this shouldn't be done, then why aren't you complaining with > everyone who is announcing an AS-set? I never said that this shouldn't be done. I said it shouldn't be done without the consent of the owners of the ASes you wish to include. In addition, the things I don't complain about don't constitute a defense to the things I do complain about. > > [Quote of section 5.1.2 almost in its entirety] > > > > So you are violating RFC1771, plain and simple. To then go > > and cite one > > small section of RFC1771 in your defense is hypocritical. > > You quote Section 5.1.2, but you don't mention that if you follow > Section 5.1.2 to the letter there is no way that an AS-path may contain > an AS-set. To summarize the whole of section 5.1.2, the various cases are: > > Propagating a route learned from an UPDATE message: > > a) To another router in same AS: don't modify AS-path > b) To a neighboring AS: > 1. Path starts with AS_SEQUENCE: prepend own ASn > 2. Path starts with AS_SET: prepend new AS_SEQUENCE with own AS in it > > Originating a route: > > a) To neighboring AS: announce own ASn as only element in path > b) To another router in same AS: announce empty AS-path > > If you follow this to the letter, you must rule out both prepending "(In > this case, the AS number of the originating speaker's autonomous system > will be the only entry in the AS_PATH attribute)" and any form of > AS-set, since there is no way, following these rules, that an AS-set may > enter the AS-path in the first place. Section 9.2.4.2 documents how an AS-set can enter the AS-path as part of aggregating routes. As far as I can tell, the use of AS-sets is permitted only to aggregate routes. > If we are violating this section, then everyone else announcing an > AS-set, and - at least the way I read it - anyone doing prepending, is > doing so too. But nobody is suggesting that these things > shouldn't be done. Lovely straw man. I complained about the lack of *consent* and you talk about people prepending their *own* AS numbers? Are you suggesting they lack their own consent?! DS
|