Re: checking for empty AS_PATH

["John W. Stewart III" <[e-mail]>]

are you assuming that the presence of a MP_REACH_NLRI
attribute means that NLRI is present?  because if you
mean to ignore the path attributes when the "standard"
NLRI field is empty, then you could end up dropping
legitimate multi-protocol NLRI on the floor

it's well possible that i'm being overly zealous in my
interpretation of this thread, but given the novel use
of attributes to carry NLRI, we've got to make sure
that the base spec doesn't end up suggesting a way to
implement that precludes them...

/jws

 > 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.