On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Jakob Heitz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:53 AM, 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 it was along the lines of: > 2 AS paths will create the opportunity for an error if they differ > and we don't want to go around the error-handling block again. > > I agree with Robert. Today, there are many tools that interact > with BGP messages. If the AS_PATH disappears, they will all break.
aspath doesn't disappear if I'm only speaking to a non-BGPSEC speaker. If the tools in question are updated to understand BGPSEC (and negotiate that capability with the bgp speaker) then ... they'd obviously have to know how to deal with this situation, right? -chris _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
