My reply only had gone out to IDR, copying everyone else and catching some missing text:
Ines, Thanks for your review.
On 2/17/25 15:16, Ines Robles via
Datatracker wrote:
The document is well written, and I have some questions:
1- Consistent Brief Aggregation: What operational considerations or guidelines
do you suggest for selecting the designated origin AS in environments where
multiple candidate origins exist, such as in multi-homed or proxy aggregation
scenarios?
It's difficult to offer strong advice here, because "that
depends". Fundamentally what we're interested in is that the
operator chooses something that will make sense for their
environment. The most likely scenario will be that the
aggregating party is also the holder of the address space for the
aggregate. In such cases their own AS will likely be the origin
AS and they will discard the contributing AS_PATHs and originate
the aggregate using their own AS.
For the other cases? It'll depend. The most likely case for
including a contributing downstream AS will be when the address
space has been partitioned and the proxy aggregation will be for a
more specific network. An example could be provided, but the worry is that suggestions
are read overly strong as normative implementation advice.
2- In cases where consistent brief aggregation results in an empty AS_PATH, is
attaching the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute sufficient to handle the resulting
loss of AS_PATH information? Or should operators implement additional measures
to ensure proper route validation and loop prevention?
ATOMIC_AGGREGATE is effectively vestigial. No one automatically deaggregates.
-- Jeff |
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
