On 3/21/12 6:05 PM, "Robert Raszuk" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> > What happens in your example if singed comes with PATH_SIG listing >>>4 ASes >>> > (pCount=1 of each) and real AS_PATH is length of 3 ? > > >> so, pcount I'm not a fan of.... but, you're suggesting a path that's >> invalid? or impossible? > >Worse .. in my example both paths are valid, crystal clear and pass all >validations one can apply. If you are talking about BGPSEC as currently proposed, this can't happen. The definition of validity of a PATH_SIG is that valid signatures exactly correspond to AS_PATH data. See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-02#section-5.1 Once again, given the encoding of AS_PATH directly in PATH_SIG attribute, the exact scenario is moot (a BGPSEC update will never contain both AS_PATH and PATH_SIG attributes), but the spirit is the same, the validation algorithm will return "Invalid" Dougm _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
