Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-as-set-confed-set-02.txt

Alejandro,

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 07:03:34PM -0400, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
> We also published something, a little bit longer that what I sent to the
> list few days ago.
> 
> https://labs.lacnic.net/Una_mirada_al_uso_de_BGP_AS_SET_en_la_DFZ/

Sorry for not looking at this in more detail (my spanish is weak) but I find
a very puzzling item in your results: IPv6

In IPv6, we shouldn't have any motivation to do aggregation in the
traditional sense.  Have you done any analysis of the prefixes involved in
that IPv6 aggregation?

Your data also supports my observations about the oddities for private ASes
and thus likely bugs in some implementations vs. aggregation and private
ASes and remove-private.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr