Re: [sidr] 4-byte vs 2 byte ASN (was re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt)

[Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:09:36PM -0700, Pradosh Mohapatra wrote:
| >Posing the question about 4-byte ASNs in my review of the BGPSec
| >design reqs draft yesterday makes me wonder about the same in pfx-
| >validate. The draft makes reference to AS_PATH in several
| >locations. I'm thinking that we need a comment early in the draft
| >stating that for the remainder of the draft no distinction is
| >being made between AS_PATH and AS4_PATH, and that this standard is
| >expected to support origin validation of both. Or alternatively,
| >specify that this validation is performed on AS4_PATH and require
| >support for 4893 as a prerequisite for SIDR.
| >If we don't explicitly require hosts that support SIDR origin
| >validation to support 4-byte ASN, we may also need some direction
| >regarding specific handling for AS23456, such as to always treat
| >as unknown since there is no way to determine validity for the
| >combination of a prefix and a non-unique placeholder ASN (except
| >for local TA), but we don't necessarily want those routes to be
| >treated as invalid.
| 
| 
| I think it's fair to assume that routers supporting origin
| validation also support 4893.

i concur;