Subject: Re: [Idr] Next revision of AS_HOPCOUNT

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:48:58 -0500 (EST)

>The draft specifies the required behaviour for an implementation in  
>the case where the attribute is present. Those requirements are  
>orthogonal to whether or not an operator of an AS decides to  
>implement policy which removes particular attributes which were added  
>elsewhere.

Sounds to me like you are quibbling - if the AS removes the
attribute and creates a new lookalike with a value that would
not follow the spec, then it is OK.

I don't think "this isn't a modification, it is a deletion and
insertion" is necessarily always justified.

Or maybe you don't realize that I'm talking about changing the
value in an existing attribute.

So - suppose you create a PATHLIMIT of 4 and *two* hops away,
someone changes the limit to 15?  I.E., not a new attribute,
keeping your AS number in the attribute and all that.  Is that
still OK with you?  If we're talking about HOPCOUNT, if you
create a HOPCOUNT of 4 and two hops away someone adds 6?
Still OK?  These aren't at the limit you've specified for the
propagation of the route, the changes are somewhere along the way.

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:01:34 -0800

<tweet>

Ok, this conversation, while interesting, is getting more than a wee  
bit off
topic.

Can we please take it to RPSEC?  The entire issue of what RPSEC will
protect, how it can protect mutable attributes and not force a full  
re-engineering
of the entire Internet is NOT something that we should be solving here.

PATHLIMIT is certainly intended to be one of those mutable attributes,
either because it is being decrement, applied by proxy, or both.

Tony