IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: checking for empty AS_PATH

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com> Fri, 18 July 1997 20:40 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa14292; 18 Jul 97 16:40 EDT
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [198.108.1.42]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid QAA16956 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:39:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12462 for idr-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:07:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from interlock.ans.net (interlock.ans.net [147.225.5.5]) by merit.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12436 for <bgp@merit.edu>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:07:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by interlock.ans.net id AA27548 (InterLock SMTP Gateway 3.0 for bgp@ans.net); Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:07:06 -0400
Received: by interlock.ans.net (Internal Mail Agent-1); Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:07:06 -0400
Message-Id: <199707182006.NAA26300@puli.cisco.com>
To: Timothy O'Connor <toconnor@bbn.com>
Cc: bgp@ans.net
Subject: Re: checking for empty AS_PATH
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Jul 97 15:50:37 EDT." <199707181955.AA26813@interlock.ans.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 13:06:37 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Tim,

> > we should probably make the check even stronger by checking
> > whether the most recent AS in the AS_PATH is the same as the
> > AS of the external peer. 
> 
> Any opinion on the case of whether a non-zero AS path is allowed
> in an UPDATE containing only unreachable routes? Should the spec
> say that the contents of the Path is ignored in this case, or
> should it say that there must be no Path information at all?

I think that saying that when an UPDATE contains only unreachable
routes the contents of the Path message shall be ignored is
a fine idea.

Yakov.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email