IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 30 September 2011 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 C68BE21F8B3E for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 yW1O0k9n+fV8 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A28721F8B24 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1R9eBL-00027c-FS; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:35:19 +0000
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:35:18 +0900
Message-ID: <m2bou2t7x5.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110930122831.GA10176@juniper.net>
References: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com> <20110930101754.GB10004@juniper.net> <m2ehyytj2l.wl%randy@psg.com> <20110930122831.GA10176@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:32:27 -0000

>>> my read of 10.0.0.0/16-16 is an exact match
>>> and 10.0.0.0/16-32 is a subtree match ('orlonger' in JUNOS policy
>>> terms ;-))
>> yes.
> so why is it (per your previous example) 'invalid' then -
> since a exact match was requested and no exact match could be found
> it should be 'not found'.

because we call it an attack.  see all the specs.

> if one wanted to match against the whole subtree then 10.0.0.0/16-32
> shall be advertised and signed;

almost the opposite.

>> fwiw, i do not remember junos as having a policy term to express
>> 10.0.0.0/16-14 :)
> e.g. route-filter 10.0.0.0/14 prefix-length-range /14-/16

cool

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email