IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net> Fri, 30 September 2011 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@juniper.net>
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 A029B21F8B57 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 pj5WgW4LDsB3 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAC921F8B56 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKToW2EoOyIqYeF8riLK0Dfi7RZWVUvG5L@postini.com; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:29:08 PDT
Received: from hannes-755.juniper.net (172.23.4.253) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.83.0; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 05:28:34 -0700
Received: by hannes-755.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2EFBA238F9; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:28:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:28:33 +0200
From: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20110930122831.GA10176@juniper.net>
References: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com> <20110930101754.GB10004@juniper.net> <m2ehyytj2l.wl%randy@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m2ehyytj2l.wl%randy@psg.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 12:26:15 -0000

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 07:34:26PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
| > 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'. - if one wanted to match against the whole
subtree then 10.0.0.0/16-32 shall be advertised and signed;

| fwiw, i do not remember junos as having a policy term to express
| 10.0.0.0/16-14  :)

have a look at 'prefix-length-range' policy qualifier.
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos94/swconfig-policy/defining-route-lists.html
e.g. route-filter 10.0.0.0/14 prefix-length-range /14-/16

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email