[Idr] Path Attribute Type Code 0
Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com> Tue, 30 November 2010 14:35 UTC
Return-Path: <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E0C28B56A for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:35:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LrZyTGQpZup4 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:35:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from diehard.n-r-g.com (diehard.n-r-g.com [62.48.3.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37423A6C74 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:34:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 17921 invoked by uid 1001); 30 Nov 2010 14:36:07 -0000
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:36:07 +0100
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
To: idr@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20101130143607.GU27694@diehard.n-r-g.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: [Idr] Path Attribute Type Code 0
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:35:01 -0000
Hi, It seems that neither RFC4271 nor IANA specifies what a Path Attribute Type Code of 0 is and therefore it is not clear what the behaviour should be when receiving an update with such an attribute. What are other implementations doing when an attribute with type 0 is encountered? Should it be treated like any other optional attribute? Should the transitive bit be respected? Can we update the list at IANA to include 0 so that all possible values are covered? regards -- :wq Claudio
- [Idr] Path Attribute Type Code 0 Claudio Jeker
- Re: [Idr] Path Attribute Type Code 0 Pradosh Mohapatra
- Re: [Idr] Path Attribute Type Code 0 Tony Li