IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 13 June 2016 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D50E912D7BD for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCNYiEBNPdDH for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216BE12D7C4 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26438 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2016 16:17:50 +0200
Received: from p5dec2a86.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (93.236.42.134) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 13 Jun 2016 16:17:50 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <575EB839.3050303@foobar.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:17:49 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <0DE7AB8E-4CFD-44C5-898F-47F48B542599@kuehlewind.net>
References: <20160613132809.12486.44511.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <575EB839.3050303@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/S2yNBvCWQ7p-0VIkz5AbOq-1BqU>
Cc: idr@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, shares@ndzh.com, draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ix-bgp-route-server-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:17:56 -0000

Great! Thanks!

> Am 13.06.2016 um 15:42 schrieb Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>:
> 
> Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> Quick question: Why is the following statement a SHOULD and not a MUST:
>> "the route server SHOULD NOT prepend its own AS number to the AS_PATH
>>   segment nor modify the AS_PATH segment in any other way. "
>> Is this because the clients might eitherwise not accept the message? 
>> Maybe add one sentence to explain the SHOULD!
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> This was the subject of some discussion recently on IDR.  Yes, probably
> appropriate to add in a one-liner to explain why it's SHOULD rather than
> MUST.
> 
> Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email