Re: Routing parts of another LIR's PA block
In a message dated 8/31/00 7:59:51 PM W. Europe Daylight Time, randy@psg.com writes: Folks, I think there is a misunderstanding here: << this is not bgp spec. it is rfc 1930, see appended, and is not a MUST NOT. >> As you can see above Randy wrote that this is *NOT* a MUST NOT, and not the opposite as people seem to believe. Cheers
this is not bgp spec. it is rfc 1930, see appended, and is not a MUST NOT.
Bovio> As you can see above Randy wrote that this is *NOT* a MUST NOT, Bovio> and not the opposite as people seem to believe. However, rfc1930 pre-dates rfc2119/bcp0014. Even though some authors may have used the MUST / MUST NOT / etc. notation prior to rfc2119, not all did: for example rfc1918, a prime candidate for a bunch of MUST NOTs if ever there was one, does not use such notation. Admittedly rfc1930 and rfc1918 are not documents in the standards track for which rfc2119 is most targetted, but that further implies that we can't put too much weight on a missing MUST NOT in rfc1930. I'm sure that if I'm off-base here, Randy will gently correct me. :-) Regardless, I feel that clarification on the correctness of the practice of orginating a prefix in multiple ASes is called for. On this I agree with Philip: Philip> Not commenting on the rights and wrong, but if this is really Philip> a "MUST NOT" it needs to be documented as such. Thanks. Jay B. -- Jay Borkenhagen jayb@braeburn.org
participants (2)
-
Bovio＠aol.com -
Jay Borkenhagen