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; _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
