IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10.txt

Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> Sun, 10 April 2011 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB683A6937 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.434, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GYPEKnKAyMu0 for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from neo-u2.ops-netman.net (neo-u2.OPS-NETMAN.NET [71.246.230.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841223A6876 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:500:30:0:224:d7ff:fe4d:c624] (unknown [IPv6:2001:500:30:0:224:d7ff:fe4d:c624]) (Authenticated sender: morrowc@OPS-NETMAN.NET) by neo-u2.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1770358743; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:57:40 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4DA1A935.4060004@ops-netman.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:57:25 +0200
From: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <4DA0525B.1010804@gmail.com> <6B4E37B9-9A12-4A79-A43D-6DF16AC33E28@apnic.net> <4DA15DD1.7020407@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DA15DD1.7020407@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:42:17 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation.all@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:57:44 -0000

I hate to intrude, but...

On 04/10/11 09:35, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Also, given the current proposal in the IDR WG to deprecate the use
>> > of AS Sets (and by implication deprecate the (rarely used if ever)
>> > practice of proxy aggregation, I am unsure of the need to call out 
>> > proxy aggregation in this context.
>
> I won't get into that debate ;-)
> 

Brian,
Is this not 'proxy aggregation' but something like just announcing an
aggregate where you don't actually hold the supernet as an allocated
prefix to you?

For example:
  206.44.0.0/16

being held up for a customer by their ISP... ideally the ISP has a ROA
for this, but today it's a handshake agreement with a former employee
(on both sides I would bet)

-chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email