Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E835321F8B3F for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:37:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9BKOofMHYSPh for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8441D21F8B2E for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:37:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 5770D268063; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:37:54 -0700 (MST) Received: from [172.16.7.31] (122.147.35.3 [122.147.35.3]) (authenticated-user smtp) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 04:37:54 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=122.147.35.3; client-port=43452; syn-fingerprint=65535:44:1:64:M1460,N,W3,N,N,T,S MacOS 10.4.8; data-bytes=0 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Danny McPherson In-Reply-To: <258A421C-BC96-4076-8DDA-A9C87045151A@juniper.net> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:37:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <225C5FF4-7B60-4DC6-A13E-B496C434C20A@tcb.net> References: <258A421C-BC96-4076-8DDA-A9C87045151A@juniper.net> To: John Scudder X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: sidr wg list Subject: Re: [sidr] Question about draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03 X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:37:55 -0000 On Nov 13, 2011, at 3:17 AM, John Scudder wrote: > IMO the way to handle this is observe that all routes have a validity = state attribute and that it needs to be settable in policy. I believe = the draft already says this (I will check though) and so it provides the = necessary minimum toolset needed to apply a given state to local routes. = It might be worth saying something about what state a route should take = by default, which I'm pretty sure we don't do now. (If done this might = need to be broken down into several cases, e.g. EBGP vs. IBGP vs. = locally originated.) Agreed, thanks John,=20 -danny=