Authors, Some various comments on the draft in no particular order: - Consider using the document ASes from the reserved ranges; i.e. RFC 5398 - Construct a unified table of the "results" and a short term for their meaning. One of my least favorite thing in RFCs that tend to be placed into code is calling something a "type X". It leads to rather confusing conversations unless you're a protocol expert.
A final comment is another infrequent case a provider's AS may end up in the AS-Path: Intentionally forcing that provider to discard a route *you* own. Consider the case where AS 64512 owns 192.0.2/24. AS 64512 is under a heavy DDoS attack that is substantially originated from AS 65535. By prepending 65535 to the AS-Path upon origination, 65535 will lose the route to 192.0.2/24 and, if default-free, much of the attack traffic goes away. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
