[Idr] Re: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)

["Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Oh!  Are you receiving other people’s IDR posts? You are posting to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> ?

Please forward me what you sent to the IDR list. I can see if I spot anything. Otherwise, we can get help from the IDR secretary.

Sriram

From: Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 10:13 AM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)

Re-subscribed and resent the email. Still doesn’t show up?

// CF

From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 9:43 AM
To: Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)
Hi Carl,

Maybe you are not subscribed to IDR list?  You can subscribe here and resend:

https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[e-mail]/

Thank you.

Sriram
From: Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 9:10 AM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)

Hi Siriram,

Thanks. I sent an email response yesterday, but still don’t see it listed on the IDR mailing list. Did I do something wrong when I replied?

BR,
// CF

From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 at 9:36 AM
To: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Job Snijders <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)
Hi Ben,  Carl:

Please consider chiming in... just a couple more responses to the WG LC on IDR might be sufficient to put this misery (AS_SET/AS_CONFED_SET) behind us!!

Ben: Ketan followed up on the discussion you and I had with him at IETF 120.  See his suggested wording here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/9IQKgUJVYA6FI-iQQJq7bCcP6eE/

Thanks.

Sriram

-----Original Message-----
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2024 1:31 PM
To: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Job Snijders <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: AS_SET deprecation draft in WG last call (RE: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set)

Hi Ben, Job, Carl:

As you may have noticed, the draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed is in WG LC in IDR:
https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fidr%2FZW37LYkZ2QoKuVR-jnR2xVEm4NU%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ccarl-fredrik.lagerfeldt%40arelion.com%7Cf78df66a3aeb45774d9708dcb6e5e65f%7C37ce80acc6954482bd8d47ede8fe81ba%7C0%7C0%7C638586345745257817%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xRnGvfB2c48t%2FmqAVjKKI1FHL433b86KlClmjLLnYXA%3D&reserved=0<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZW37LYkZ2QoKuVR-jnR2xVEm4NU/>

Your participation and comments in the WG LC will be much appreciated.

Sriram

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 4:16 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Carl Fredrik Lagerfeldt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Job Snijders <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Progressing draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set

Hi all,

It was recently pointed out to me that we currently have divergence between vendors in the ROV handling of paths with an AS_SET other than in the rightmost segment of the AS_PATH (thanks CF!).

Some vendors ignore the presence of such a segment (since it's not in the origin position), whilst others mark any such path as being incapable of matching a VRP. There is no definitive answer to which is correct in any relevant RFC that I can find.

This is having the unfortunate result of Internet operators arguing about whether certain paths should be propagating into the DFZ :-(

I don't consider ROV to be the correct context in which to look for a resolution to this debate. The subject I-D would mandate operators to reject paths containing AS_SETs, without reference to side issues such as "is there a ROA or an ASPA".

I have re-read the draft, and it looks ready to ship. A similar (albeit
muted) sentiment appears from the list archives.

Do the authors think there is anything further to add to the document?
Or is it time for a push towards WGLC and ask Job to get his Rolodex out again?!

Cheers,

Ben
________________________________

This email may contain information which is privileged or protected against unauthorized disclosure or communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof or disclosing its contents to any other person.   ​

  ​

Arelion values the privacy of your personal data, and processes emails and files that may contain personal data in accordance with Arelion’s Privacy Policy<https://www.arelion.com/legal/privacy-policy.html>.

________________________________

This email may contain information which is privileged or protected against unauthorized disclosure or communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system without producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof or disclosing its contents to any other person.   ​

  ​

Arelion values the privacy of your personal data, and processes emails and files that may contain personal data in accordance with Arelion’s Privacy Policy<https://www.arelion.com/legal/privacy-policy.html>.