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

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:

> this is now changed as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://github.com/fooelisa/draft-jasinska-ix-bgp-route-server/commit/5fd0508
>>>
>>> i hate to be old fashioned; actually, that's a lie; but is there either
>>> an OLD/NEW here or an internet-draft.
>>>
>>
>> ​did you mean: "Where is the full draft?"
>>
>
> no.  i mean a real internet-draft, in the ietf drafts directory which i
> mirror.
>

​oh! "hey, cool code kid, got an email to the submission bot to get your
changes to where we can all see them?" (version of: ​
http://static.flickr.com/87/240803829_9212773615_o.png)

err, maybe nick was thinking there might be more revisions on his text
options?

I'm not a native bgp speaker, but I'd question (for instance) the use of
'AS_PATH segment' in this part of the draft, given:

            "AS_PATH is a well-known mandatory attribute that is composed
            of a sequence of AS path segments.  Each AS path segment is
            represented by a triple <path segment type, path segment
            length, path segment value>."

from: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271

I would have thought 'segment' was an individual 'asn' (the triple I
suppose, the TLV) in the AS_PATH, not the whole 'AS_PATH' attribute. Maybe
instead of 'AS_PATH segment' in nick's revision:

             "This differs from the behaviour
              specified in section 5.1.2 of <xref target="RFC4271" />, which
              requires that the BGP speaker prepends its own AS number as
              the last element of the AS_PATH.  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 this
              may adversely affect the resulting network topology between
the
              route server clients."

​again, I'm not a native bgp speaker, so I'm probably off base, but...
maybe there's a revision in the revision still to be had before updating
the actual draft archive?​