Re: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ?

[Enke Chen <[e-mail]>]

Warren:

I do not agree with the new text in the draft:

----
    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 (or
    AS4_PATH) attribute, it SHOULD be logged and treated as a WITHDRAW.
    This same behavior applies to routes containing zero as the
    Aggregator or AS4 Aggregator.

-----

The presence of AS 0 is considered as an error.  The handling of the 
error condition should be specific to that attribute.  That is:

    o For the AS4_PATH and AS4_AGGREGATOR, the action is "attribute 
discard" as specified in the rfc4893bis.

    o For the AGGREGATOR, the action is also "attribute discard" as 
specified in draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-00.txt


I still think and continue to recommend that you merely describe that AS 
0 is an error condition in the draft, and let the error handling draft 
do the rest, as I suggested before:

    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


-- Enke

On 12/1/11 1:50 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> [ Changed subject to reflect new title ]
>
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> 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?)
> Actually Keyur Patel already pointed out the Aggregator (and AS4 Aggregator) attribute issue, and I included text in the WG version of the doc, which I posted recently (although I have just realized that I entered the text as "Aggregator" and not "AGGREGATOR", same for AS4...)
>
> Which reminds me -- would folk please review draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 ) and provide feedback?
> I *think* that I incorporated everyones comments, although I accidentally overwrote the changed version with an older version (never edit a file in two editors at once :-)) and so may have missed some...
>
> W
>
>>> 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