Subject: RE: issue 58

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:00:57 -0400

In reference to

"We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated rather
than replaced with an AS_SET.  It was always purely informational since no
one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced. Don't implementations still
support this?" (Curtis)

AFAIK, yes, that is what IOS does--which does not match the draft.

I agree with Curtis, changing the wording to indicate that it is
informational and/or to match current implementations (what does Juniper
do?) is better than depreciating it.

I don't think to actually does anything other than let the administrator
know it was truncated, but I am not 100% sure on this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:46 PM
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: issue 58 

In message <[email-masked]>, Yakov Rekhter
writes
:
>   58) Deprication of ATOMIC_AGGREGATE
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>   Status: No Consensus
>   Change: Potentially
>   Summary: It is proposed that ATOMIC_AGGREGATE be depricated.  There has 
>    not yet been any discussion on the proposed changes.
> 
> Comments on this issue would be appreciated.
> 
> In the absence of any objections to the changes proposed by Jeff, the
> changes would be accepted. 
> 
> Yakov.

We used to add ATOMIC_AGGREGATE whenever the AS_PATH was truncated
rather than replaced with an AS_SET.  It was always purely
informational since no one intentionally deaggregated and reannounced.
Don't implementations still support this?

If reality is that it is informational only, then just remove the
MUSTs and indicate that it is informational.

Curtis

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:06:14 -0400

> AFAIK, yes, that is what IOS does--which does not match the draft.

It does:
   When a router aggregates several routes for the purpose of
   advertisement to a particular peer, and the AS_PATH of the aggregated
   route excludes at least some of the AS numbers present in the AS_PATH
   of the routes that are aggregated, the aggregated route, when
   advertised to the peer, MUST include the ATOMIC_AGGREGATE attribute.

> do?) is better than depreciating it.

See their "brief" option.

> know it was truncated, but I am not 100% sure on this.

What it does is causes aggregate routes to potentially be candidates
for causing loops.  In practice, this isn't too much of
an issue since the more specific components are usually present
everywhere that they are necessary.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies