Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 (bgp update destroying transit on redback routers ?)
From: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura () ericsson com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 03:21:33 -0500

Hi Daniel,

I do understand the use of it however have my doubts about usability as such, I'd really like to see anyone using it 
for the reason below.
All of updates with ASN 0 I have seen in the past few years were there due to software bugs, not explicit configuration 
- same as this one.

Warren/ idr -  I do support addition of AGGREGATOR in the draft


P.S. Jeffrey/John -  this draft makes use of "no-aggregator-id"  de facto illigal, are you (your customers) OK with it? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ginsburg [mailto:dbg () net-geek org] 
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 5:13 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura; Warren Kumari
Cc: nanog () nanog org; idr () ietf org
Subject: draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 (bgp update destroying transit on redback routers ?)


This is true that "no-aggregator-id" knob zeroes out the AGGREGATOR attribute.

The knob, as far as I was able to find out, dates back to gated and there's a reason why it was introduced - it helps 
to avoid unnecessary updates. Assume that an aggregate route is generated by two (or more) speakers in the network. 
These two aggregates differ only in AGGREGATOR attribute. One of the aggregates is preferred within the network (due to 
IGP metric, for instance, or any other reasons) and is announced out. Now if something changes within the network and 
the other instance of the aggregate becomes preferred, the network has to issue an outward update different from the 
previous only in AGGREGATOR attribute, which is completely superfluous.

If the network employs the "no-aggregator-id" knob to zero out the AGGREGATOR attribute, both instances of the 
aggregate route are completely equivalent, and no redundant outward updates have to be send if one instance becomes 
better than another due to some internal event, which nobody in the Internet cares about.

In other words, the "no-aggregator-id" knob has valid operational reasons to be used. And, IMHO, the 
draft-ietf-idr-as0-00 should not prohibit AS0 in AGGREGATOR attribute.

On 02.12.2011, at 1:56, Jeff Tantsura wrote:


Let me take it over from now on, I'm the IP Routing/MPLS Product Manager at Ericsson responsible for all routing 
There's nothing wrong in checking ASN in AGGREGATOR, we don't really want see ASN 0 anywhere, that's how 
draft-wkumari-idr-as0 (draft-ietf-idr-as0-00) came into the worlds.

To my knowledge - the only vendor which allows changing ASN in AGGREGATOR is Juniper, see "no-aggregator-id", in the 
past I've tried to talk to Yakov about it, without any results though. 
So for those who have it configured - please rethink whether you really need it.

As for SEOS - understanding that this badly affects our customers and not having draft-ietf-idr-error-handling fully 
implemented yet, we will temporarily disable this check in our code.
Patch will be made available.

Please contact me for any further clarifications.


P.S. Warren has recently  included AGGREGATOR in the draft, please see

2. Behavior
  This document specifies that a BGP speaker MUST NOT originate or
  propagate a route with an AS number of zero.  If a BGP speaker
  receives a route which has an AS number of zero in the AS_PATH (or
  AS4_PATH) attribute, it SHOULD be logged and treated as a WITHDRAW.
  This same behavior applies to routes containing zero as the
  Aggregator or AS4 Aggregator.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]