Job Snijders wrote on 21/07/2022 10:37:
In the spirit of RFC6472, any route with an AS_SET in it should not be considered valid (by ASPA-based validation).
An AS_SET inside an AS_SEQUENCE only makes sense from the point of view of the organisation issuing the route wanting to do weird EBGP loop detection. This is their problem though. No-one wants to see the inside of other peoples' sausage factories.
Apart from the deprecation in rfc 6472, there's also rfc6907, which has a complex set of rules for handling routes with an origin which is an AS_SET. This complexity is already not good, and of dubious practical use. Replicating something similar to this in ASPA seems like a bad idea overall.
The current approach in -09 of marking the route as Unverifiable seems reasonable. 5.3 states that "Unverifiable" SHOULD be treated as semantically equivalent to "Invalid".
So yeah, why not just mark as "Invalid" and be done with it? Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
