Do not display "AS0" in results or details pages

[nusenu]

RS uses "AS0" as a placeholder for "unknown AS number",
but "AS0" has a special meaning in BGP (​https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7607 ), lets use something else?

maybe "ASXY"?

[teor]

I suggest readable english words, like "(none)" or "(unknown)".

[irl]

English words are not numbers.

The reason for choosing AS0 was that it will never appear in that field otherwise. The specification you have linked talks about AS0 being used for *non-routed* networks. If an IP address is non-routed then it would not appear in the routing tables that are used to generate this information.

"unknown" means that we did not find the address in a lookup table, that is based on BGP routing tables.

I considered using a private AS number for this field, but it is possible for these to be accepted by routers that aren't filtering properly, so this would lead to confusion.

RFC7606 was part of the reasoning for choosing AS0.

[nusenu]

Replying to irl:

English words are not numbers.

I guess no one claimed that.

The reason for choosing AS0 was that it will never appear in that field otherwise. The specification you have linked talks about AS0 being used for *non-routed* networks. If an IP address is non-routed then it would not appear in the routing tables that are used to generate this information.

correct and that is the reason why it is confusing to use AS0 for actually routed IP addresses

RFC7606 was part of the reasoning for choosing AS0.

RFC7606 - "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages"
not sure how this is related, I did not find "AS0" or "AS 0" in that document

[irl]

Replying to nusenu:

Replying to irl:

English words are not numbers.

I guess no one claimed that.

Except that AS numbers are numbers and the code is currently written in a way that expects numbers.

The reason for choosing AS0 was that it will never appear in that field otherwise. The specification you have linked talks about AS0 being used for *non-routed* networks. If an IP address is non-routed then it would not appear in the routing tables that are used to generate this information.

correct and that is the reason why it is confusing to use AS0 for actually routed IP addresses

But according to our lookup table, they are not. In the same way it is also possible for the AS announcing a prefix to change between updates of the lookup table and we would report the wrong AS number then too. The lookup is performing its job and reporting that the prefix was not announced when it returns AS0.

RFC7606 was part of the reasoning for choosing AS0.

RFC7606 - "Revised Error Handling for BGP UPDATE Messages"
not sure how this is related, I did not find "AS0" or "AS 0" in that document

I meant 7607.

[nusenu]

Replying to teor:

I suggest readable english words, like "(none)" or "(unknown)".

RS already displays "unkown" on the relay page level, so it is a bit inconsistent.

​https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#details/E43A346CB81DDF364B6FF68235AFADBA0E8692B8

[irl]

Relay Search uses this on the frontend. AS0 is only used internally for the Onionoo protocol (searches and results).

[nusenu]

Replying to irl:

Relay Search uses this on the frontend.

This is a RS ticket, not an onionoo ticket.

AS0 is only used internally for the Onionoo protocol (searches and results).

"AS0" is also shown on the frontend (RS)
​https://metrics.torproject.org/rs.html#aggregate/as
(and btw results in backend error but that is a different ticket)

[irl]

I'm not sure what you want changed in this ticket then.

AS0 is correctly used internally compliant with both the IETF specifications and the current definitions in the Onionoo protocol. Is the issue an inconsistency in the frontend?

We can introduce special cases to not show AS numbers in aggregated tables perhaps, or add some explanatory text about relays that show AS0.

[nusenu]

Replying to irl:

I'm not sure what you want changed in this ticket then.

it is about not displaying "AS0"

s/Unknown (AS0)/Unknown/
on the page linked in comment 6

AS0 is correctly used internally compliant with both the IETF specifications

I disagree that labeling a routed network as non-routed (AS0) matches the spirit of RFC7607,
but I guess we agree to disagree.

[irl]

Replying to nusenu:

Replying to irl:

I'm not sure what you want changed in this ticket then.

it is about not displaying "AS0"

s/Unknown (AS0)/Unknown/
on the page linked in comment 6

Ok. We can make this change.

[irl]

I am not currently working on these tickets.