> (1) AS_PATH
>
> There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30
> Apr meeting. That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from
> the bgpsec protocol. (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is
> contained in the bgpsec attributes.)
well, actually, the discussion in april was walking around many of the
implications thereof. it is hard to discuss "do we keep/replace
AS[4]_PATH" as it is abstract and draws deep philosophical discourse
with no hard handles on technical decision points.
otoh, i would be really interested in hearing/discussing if anyone sees
any show-stoppers to the current draft doing so.
i am amused that the current draft says, in the intro,
2. Every AS listed in the AS_Path attribute of the update explicitly
authorized the advertisement of the route to the subsequent AS in
the AS_Path.
when there is no bgpsec as_path. :)
> The absence of the AS_PATH did come up in discussing other topics (see
> the minutes), but we did not discuss it directly.
see above
> (2) router private key provisioning.
>
> In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from operators) that
> guidance to operators of how to provision a router with the needed
> keys would be a good idea. We had some discussion in the Paris
> meeting of two drafts discussing provisioning the routers with their
> needed private keys. There's also been a recent flurry of discussion
> on the list.
no comments on the new version of draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-00.txt.
would appreciate some now or we can ask for wglc.
there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing. may we call
them done?
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
