Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:08:02AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Does the proposed wording work for you?
> > 
> >> While it is technically possible to operate a route server which
> >> prepends its own AS to the AS_PATH, it is not recommended to do so
> >> because creating an undesirably longer AS_PATH may adversely affect
> >> the resulting network topology between the route server clients.
> 
> i suspect that the AD is competent to speak for herself.  but imiho this
> misses her point, why is the SHOULD not a MUST?  this says why it might
> be a MUST.  why allow the loophole?  i admit my example was baroque.

I am somewhat late in chiming in on this thread, but I'm also supportive of
making this a MUST.

If you're intending to inject your AS number into the path, then you're
acting as a standard BGP speaker, not a Route Server.

If the intent of the text in the current internet-draft is to leave wiggle
room for a device operating as a RS to also act as a standard BGP speaker
without RS functionality, I think that's unnecessary.

-- Jeff