Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-00

Speaking as regular ol’ member:

On Jul 1, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

>> I'll revise that text to note the case of a resource transfer appears to
>> be competition
> 
> it is more than transfer.  it is the very frequent operation of changing
> tranist providers.  i own P, but do not use bgp.  my parent T0 announces
> it for me (roa P-T0).  i change upstream providers to T1.  during the
> move there are two roas, the second being P-T1.
> 
> this all was very intentionally designed for make before break.
> multiple roas with different ASs for the same prefix are normal.  i
> found it shocking and disappointing to have the introduction say
> otherwise.

As an aside, one of my favorite BGP sites is bgp.he.net, which includes a list of prefixes that are announced by more than one AS (http://bgp.he.net/report/multi-origin-routes).  Many times it is easy to see why - the similarity in the AS names make it quite likely they “belong” to the same organization.   But there are many times when the multiple origin ASs have no relationship.

I don’t see that there’s a requirement that a router have only one certificate, either.  A router that was configured to speak as two different ASs might have one key certified by both ASs and might have two different keys, one for each AS.

—Ssandy

> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-00

Attachment: signature.asc