nanog mailing list archives
Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets
From: Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:22:55 -0400
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:04 AM Alejandro Acosta <alejandroacostaalamo () gmail com> wrote:
Hello Lars, As a comment there is a draft that proposes to deprecate AS_SET https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set/?include_text=1
Ta, thanks. This completes the work started by RFC6472 - "Recommendation for Not Using AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET in BGP". W
Alejandro, On 4/11/20 7:09 AM, Lars Prehn wrote:Hi everyone, how exactly do you aggregate routes? When do you add the AS_SET attribute, when do you omit it? How does the latter interplay with RPKI? Best regards, Lars
-- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
Current thread:
- Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Lars Prehn (Apr 13)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Christopher Morrow (Apr 13)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Lars Prehn (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Christopher Morrow (Apr 14)
- RE: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Deepak Jain (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Lars Prehn (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Alejandro Acosta (Apr 13)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Warren Kumari (Apr 14)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Matthew Petach (Apr 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Matthew Petach (Apr 15)
- RE: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Matthew Petach (Apr 15)
- Re: Route aggregation w/o AS-Sets Christopher Morrow (Apr 13)