RE: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days

From: David Schwartz (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 20:26:41 EST

  • Next message: Brian (nanog): "RE: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days"

    > >>So, given these considerations, is everyone announcing an AS-set
    > >>announcing "routes that falsely claim to have passed through another
    > >>autonymous system"?
    > >
    > > Yes. From RFC1771:

    > Ok, so if everyone announcing an AS-set is announcing "routes that
    > falsely claim to have passed through another autonymous system", and you
    > are saying this shouldn't be done, then why aren't you complaining with
    > everyone who is announcing an AS-set?

            I never said that this shouldn't be done. I said it shouldn't be done
    without the consent of the owners of the ASes you wish to include. In
    addition, the things I don't complain about don't constitute a defense to
    the things I do complain about.

    > > [Quote of section 5.1.2 almost in its entirety]
    > >
    > > So you are violating RFC1771, plain and simple. To then go
    > > and cite one
    > > small section of RFC1771 in your defense is hypocritical.
    >
    > You quote Section 5.1.2, but you don't mention that if you follow
    > Section 5.1.2 to the letter there is no way that an AS-path may contain
    > an AS-set. To summarize the whole of section 5.1.2, the various cases are:
    >
    > Propagating a route learned from an UPDATE message:
    >
    > a) To another router in same AS: don't modify AS-path
    > b) To a neighboring AS:
    > 1. Path starts with AS_SEQUENCE: prepend own ASn
    > 2. Path starts with AS_SET: prepend new AS_SEQUENCE with own AS in it
    >
    > Originating a route:
    >
    > a) To neighboring AS: announce own ASn as only element in path
    > b) To another router in same AS: announce empty AS-path
    >
    > If you follow this to the letter, you must rule out both prepending "(In
    > this case, the AS number of the originating speaker's autonomous system
    > will be the only entry in the AS_PATH attribute)" and any form of
    > AS-set, since there is no way, following these rules, that an AS-set may
    > enter the AS-path in the first place.

            Section 9.2.4.2 documents how an AS-set can enter the AS-path as part of
    aggregating routes. As far as I can tell, the use of AS-sets is permitted
    only to aggregate routes.

    > If we are violating this section, then everyone else announcing an
    > AS-set, and - at least the way I read it - anyone doing prepending, is
    > doing so too. But nobody is suggesting that these things
    > shouldn't be done.

            Lovely straw man. I complained about the lack of *consent* and you talk
    about people prepending their *own* AS numbers? Are you suggesting they lack
    their own consent?!

            DS


  • Next message: Brian (nanog): "RE: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD