126.96.36.199/23 prefix in DFZ - AS3.21 / AS196629 - announced with AS_CONFED_SEQUENCE in AS4_PATH - propagated by 35320
billf at mu.org
Thu Dec 11 16:46:44 CST 2008
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 01:28:46PM +0100, bjorn at mork.no wrote:
> No you can't rely on that. But still, RFC4271 doesn't seemt to allow
> ignoring it. Which must be a bug in the RFC, or my reading of it.
> Hopefully the latter. Great if someone could correct the interpretation
> IMHO, an optional transitive attribute with the partial bit set should
> not cause session tear-down, since the attribute is forwarded across one
> or more routers not handling it and therefore not filtering it.
> However, RFC4271 does not make such an exception for optional +
> transitive + partial AFAICS:
[..... copy/paste deleted .....]
> Which basically means that you can take down every RFC-compliant 4-byte
> ASN honouring router today by injecting a bogus AS4_PATH attribute into
> the mostly 2-byte-ASN-only Internet...
> Or did I miss something? I certainly hope I did.
this was brought up in the IETF IDR mailing list today. i've attached
the response from that thread that addresses your reading of the RFC.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "John G. Scudder" <jgs at juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Idr] RFC-4893 handling malformed AS4_PATH attributes
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:36:21 -0500
More information about the NANOG