nanog mailing list archives
Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path
From: Tom Sanders <toms.sanders () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 06:30:23 +0530
You can *not* merge AS_SET's, as the current BGP specs imply an AS_SET has a fixed path-length, hence you should NOT merge the sets in: {1 2} [3 4] [5 6] into: {1 2} [3 4 5 6] as the former path has a length of 3, the latter a length of just 2 - merging sets could change their meaning. Note though that you're not at all likely to see such paths with BGP speakers implementing the RFC / draft-ietf-idr-bgp-26.txt draft.
This is one thing that i have always been aware of but dont see it mentioned in the BGP draft which can be quite confusing to the newbies. Is it possible to explicitly mention this in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-26.txt? Toms.
Current thread:
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path, (continued)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Richard A Steenbergen (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Abhishek Verma (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Randy Bush (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Abhishek Verma (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Stephen J. Wilcox (Aug 30)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Jake Khuon (Aug 30)
- Bellsouth.net Outage? Alan Spicer (Aug 30)
- Re: Bellsouth.net Outage? Jon Lewis (Aug 30)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Abhishek Verma (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Richard A Steenbergen (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Randy Bush (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Tom Sanders (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Paul Jakma (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Abhishek Verma (Aug 30)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Paul Jakma (Aug 29)
- Re: Order of ASes in the BGP Path Tom Sanders (Aug 29)