Nick, >Ben Maddison wrote on 11/03/2022 07:23: >> Essential, I would think: how could a far end relying party know that >> an AS in the middle of a received AS_PATH is a non-transparent IXP RS >> in order to apply any other treatment?
>given that they're a shrinking rarity, would it not make sense to completely >exclude non-transparent RSs from the ASPA definition? In the short term this >would cause problems for ASNs which connect to non-transparent RSs, but there >are hardly any left, and only one sizeable one. >I wonder whether it's a good idea to design a long term security mechanism >which includes a specific carve-out for a legacy corner case like this. Not sure why Ben even raised that question. To me, it doesn't seem relevant. In the route leak detection procedures, the receiving/validating AS does not require information about the nature of ASes (RS or not RS) in the AS Path except for the sending/neighbor AS which it knows to be an RS in case it knows itself to be an RS-client. The procedures rely only on ASPA objects for the origin AS and ASes in the middle. Sriram _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow