Re: [Idr] Accept draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01.txt ?

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Enke Chen wrote:
>
>> Support, but with the following suggestions:
>>
>> 1) Nit: change "bgp listener" to "bgp speaker".
>
> Thank you, done.
>
>>
>> 2) The following language is not very precise.  Due to the incremental nature, we will need to remove the existing route too.
>>
>> -----
>>    a BGP
>>    listener MUST NOT accept an announcement which has an AS number of
>>    zero in the AS-PATH attribute, and SHOULD log the fact that it has
>>    done so.
>> -----
>>
>>    How about the following:
>>
>>    An UPDATE message that contains the AS number of zero in the AS-PATH attribute
>>    MUST be considered as malformed, and be handled by the procedures specified in
>>
>> draft-ietf-idr-optional-transitive-04.txt
>>
>> 3) If this draft is adopted, we should also add AS 0 as one of the error conditions in
>> rfc4893bis.
>
> John also provided some text for that section and Keyur suggested that we log and treat as a WITHDRAW.
>
> This would read as:
> "This document specifies that a BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or propagate a route with an AS number of zero.  If a BGP speaker receives a route which has an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH attribute, it SHOULD be logged and treated as a WITHDRAW."
>

a question came up recently (today) on nanog about how AS0 should be
treated wrt AGGREGATOR attributes... Should this say use of AS0
anywhere (make a list perhaps?) is verboten? (or was that assumed
already?)

> This avoids having a normative reverence to the optional-transitive draft and is (IMO) a little clearer. It also saves optional-transitive from referencing this, and so we avoid the deadlock...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> W
>
>
>>
>> Thanks.   -- Enke
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/11 1:51 PM, John Scudder wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Please send comments to the list prior to the IDR meeting on November 15.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> --John
>>>
>>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello IDRites,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to draw your attention to draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01.txt  (
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01
>>>>  ) - I am asking that this draft be considered for WG adoption.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have already received some feedback, mainly suggesting:
>>>>
>>>> - Add a text for AS number 0 as a reserved in Aggregator and AS4
>>>> Aggregator attribute
>>>>
>>>> - Add text for AS number 0 as a reserved value in communities and
>>>> extended communities. (RFC 1997 and Four-octet AS Specific Extended
>>>> Communities)
>>>>
>>>> Also suggested was providing a little more information on what to do it you do receive a route containing AS0  (more descriptive than just "MUST NOT accept" (for example, stating that it should be "excluded from the Phase 2 decision function")).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I would value your feedback and input.
>>>>
>>>> W
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Idr mailing list
>>>>
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Idr mailing list
>>>
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idr mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr