[Idr] RFC 4893 - Aggregation and mismatching AS paths

Neil Matthew <neil@abelon.com> Mon, 31 March 2008 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F3D28C182; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 455033A6BDB for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185]
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 qCSLpH3M9fvJ for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.yourhostingaccount.com (mailout03.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.253.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D983B3A6D94 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailscan08.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.15.8] helo=mailscan08.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailout03.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1JgK7w-0003zQ-NL for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:32:44 -0400
Received: from impout02.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.55.2] helo=impout02.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailscan08.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1JgK7w-0002Oe-JB for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:32:44 -0400
Received: from authsmtp10.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.18.10]) by impout02.yourhostingaccount.com with NO UCE id 7pYk1Z0030D2B7u0000000; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:32:44 -0400
X-EN-OrigOutIP: 10.1.18.10
X-EN-IMPSID: 7pYk1Z0030D2B7u0000000
Received: from 108.114.2.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.2.114.108] helo=[192.168.0.43]) by authsmtp10.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtpa (Exim) id 1JgK7v-0002so-Qf for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:32:44 -0400
Message-ID: <47F0E7F4.90401@abelon.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:32:36 +0100
From: Neil Matthew <neil@abelon.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: idr@ietf.org
X-EN-UserInfo: e65bfd3d72dfaaaf5ffb0de99fd01ea2:0d98aba8e5f6749be2df7f931a889135
X-EN-AuthUser: neilrm
X-EN-OrigIP: 81.2.114.108
X-EN-OrigHost: 108.114.2.81.in-addr.arpa
Subject: [Idr] RFC 4893 - Aggregation and mismatching AS paths
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Folks

I'm seeking clarification on a couple of points.

1. Aggregation (should an AS_SET contain multiple AS_TRANS entries)?
When performing route aggregation a four-octet peer may create an AS_SET 
with multiple non-mappable four-octet ASes.  When calculating the number 
of ASes in a path an AS_SET counts as one regardless of how many ASes it 
contains.  Am I therefore correct in thinking that it is an 
implementation choice as to whether a four-octet peer advertising to a 
two-octet peer creates an AS_SET with a single AS_TRANS entry 
representing all non-mappable AS numbers or multiple AS_TRANS entries, 
one per non-mappable AS?

2. Non Matching AS_PATH and AS4_PATH Attributes
I wonder whether RFC 4893 defines strictly enough the required 
relationship between AS_PATH and AS4_PATH. The RFC stipulates that the 
number of AS numbers in an AS4_PATH must not exceed that of the 
AS_PATH.  However this does not rule out the AS4_PATH containing more 
segments (and by implication differing segment sizes).  If this were to 
occur it would suggest something bad has happened. What should an 
implementation do in such a situation? Accept the AS4_PATH or raise an 
error?

Cheers

Neil

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr