IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Question about draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03

Pradosh Mohapatra <pmohapat@cisco.com> Sun, 13 November 2011 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <pmohapat@cisco.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 28B5911E80B0 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:36:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 mILCqqn38ag8 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:36:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F84311E8093 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:36:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=pmohapat@cisco.com; l=1581; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321169799; x=1322379399; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=dLyw3XEjg2mmLyPvC2x33q6Mc2bk7P/TbZNgg+sPdTc=; b=KYjHfjQPE9YXpUciN/K135p6SZy2HeurhpXxvr/aCnt+pPXfJ4OzlUXv oeu8hUBfWoa/zXNaTCX4r4t2FxKrEa9jLNnFSTH1dTWO8W2XaN/27gD7p PtXsQDOWyOrbW5a/bf3wKOcMbxrurW0eTDYWI5ixmI6T9ahj+i5LRjFKB M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABhyv06rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCqi+BBYFpCQEBAQMBEgFmBQsLAwFCVwY1h2CYHQGdLIkcYwSIEIwekho
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.69,502,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="13889346"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2011 07:36:38 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn4-362.cisco.com (sjc-vpn4-362.cisco.com [10.21.81.106]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAD7aclU024056; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:36:38 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1075.2)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--734786020"
From: Pradosh Mohapatra <pmohapat@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E3CAD10A-758F-435F-B79F-62171DD373CC@tcb.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:36:37 -0800
Message-Id: <8893BDFC-6BF9-4AB9-9C8B-FCF00F37A621@cisco.com>
References: <E3CAD10A-758F-435F-B79F-62171DD373CC@tcb.net>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1075.2)
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
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 <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: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:36:41 -0000

> My read of the current draft suggests that if there's a route  
> generated by the
> local AS in BGP it could never have a "Valid" state, and by  
> definition would
> either posses a "Not found" or "Invalid" state -- even though the  
> local
> AS may well have a "ROA" and reside in the mapping table as well(!).


Is there a need to compute validation state of an IBGP path?

- Pradosh

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email