On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyhow my doubt has been answered and I stay by my opinion that not sending > AS_PATH and AS4_PATH is a terrible idea.
So... we can send the data along, but in the case of BGPSEC speakers the data isn't used (it's replicated in the BGPSEC_SIGNED_PATH). Carrying extra bits isn't actually helpful is it? (the implementers drove the design decision here I believe) > Perhaps one could depreciate it in 20 years when world is upgraded to > BGPSEC, but recommending this in BGPSEC protocol draft now is IMHO not > helpful for any even potential BGPSEC deployment model. is it helpful for the folks that write bgp code though? "Hey, you will need to re-synthesize the as-path at sec->non-sec boundaries. you need to also create sec-path at none->sec boundaries." -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
