Re: [Idr] Last Call: 'Autonomous System Confederations for BGP'toDraft Standard (draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis)

On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 11:39:11AM +0530, Manav Bhatia wrote:
> >in draft nor in RFC4271) or will it set ATOMIC_AGGREGATE?
> 
> Presence of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE informs the downstream neighbors that the 
> AS_PATH information may be incomplete and/or in a nonordered set. This is 
> not applicable for BGP confederation speakers that strip of the AS_CONFED_* 
> segments when advertising routes to non-confederation peers as these peers 
> dont anyways expect to see confederation member AS numbers in the AS_PATH. 
> Note that non-confed peers are unaware that the neighboring AS is running 
> confederations.

In the instance where a set of routes are aggregated within a confederation
and ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is set for some reason, it should stay set
when readvertising the route outside of the confederation.

There is the possibility that the original contributing routes,
when aggregated at the confederation edge would not have yielded
ATOMIC_AGGREGATE.  However, we can't know this.  This is a better
safe than sorry situation.

I find it likely that people who are generating AS_CONFED_SETs aren't
likely to do lossy (AS_PATH truncation) based aggregation.  This,
however, is just an opinion.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr