AS path extensions

Daniel,

Thanks for the comements.

>I think it would be better not to let this be defined by a cisco 
>manual.

The reason we propose to use cisco notation for ASpath is that it has large 
'installed base'.  Network operators understand it and are using it.  

>The "Interaction Between ...." section is confusing.
>Semantically what I would like to see:

>One can use only orignal or only extended attributes for a given peer AS.
>The semantics in this case are clear. 

>Once can also use both kinds of attributes for a given peer AS.
>In this case care should be taken that the expressions are as 
>equivalent as possible and certainly not contradictory.
>[This is the maximum one can ask and mucho clearer than what you have].

>At this point in timew it is strongly recommended to provide original 
>attributes for the benefit of tools that do not understand extended 
>attributes yet.

Good suggestion.  It does make it clear.

>Example 4 contradicts your text in the Interaction para.
>The as paths are not anchored either ?!?

Note, Example 4 is to show an invalid object as stated in the text above it.   
But there is a typo afterwords:  'E.g. 6' should be 'E.g. 5'.


					--Jessica



-------- Logged at  Tue Mar 7 09:14:46 MET 1995  ---------