On 4/10/12 1:37 PM, "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Apr 10, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> 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) > >I think that sone of the biggest issues to keep in mind with carrying the >"same" data in two places is what to do when you suddenly discover that >they are not actually the same? Do the same thing you do when you find that the that a PATH_SIG SKI points to a CERT for an ASN that does not match the ASN in the PATH_SIG. Proceed from there ... Problem is no different... The data meant to validate the PATH, does not match the PATH. Dougm _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
