Hi, Robert: Sorry, the correct description should be “For inter-AS stub link, we must generate unnecessary Remote-AS, Remote ASBR Router ID for scenarios that described in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext-09#section-5.1 For non inter-AS stub link, we must generate Bogus-AS, and Bogus Remote ASBR Router ID”
Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Jan 15, 2022, at 07:59, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> For the current scenarios and solutions, we have analyzed that RFC 5316 and >> RFC5392 are not suitable for such purposes—we must generate bogus AS, bogus >> Remote ASBR Router ID on every inter-AS, or non inter-AS boundary links. > > Why do you think those values need to be "bogus" ? And Inter-AS is just a > perfect example on what you call a "stub link" so I would not hold on that > much to the nomenclature. > >> I would like to hear the constructive comments, or other solutions that >> better the the one in this draft. > > I think what has been suggested is just that, but of course you are entitled > to have your own opinion. > > Kind regards, > Robert >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
