Re: [sidr] Request for WG Last Call for draft-ietf-sidr-bogons-02.txt and draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-01.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> On 26/11/2008, at 2:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>> 1, 2, and 4 are uninteresting to me, not worth the additional complexity.
>>
>>> 3. I have been allocated 203.10.60.0/22. I wish to ensure that any more
>>> specific advertisement of this prefix is unauthorized. If I generate a
>>> BOA for 203.10.60.0/23 AND 203.10.62.0/23 then my intention is clear.
>>
>> ROA 203.10.60.0/22-22
>>
>> the owner of the prefix has spoken.  that is what may be announced and
>> that is all that may be announced.
>>
>> as nw once said "i did not leave that out because i ran out of ink."
>>
>> randy
>> _______________________________________________
> 
> In the context of BOA, you complained Randy, that a BOA compelled people
> lower, more specific to issue ROA to override the BOA. you complained,
> that they are unnecessarily brought into the process and cannot exist as
> non-secured routing people, unless they do this. You complained about
> the compulsion element.
> 
> But, your statement above COMPELS any more specific, to issue a valid
> ROA, to prove their routes are acceptable.

if the owner wanted to allow longer prefix(es) to be announced, they
could have issued roa(s) for the longer prefix(es).

yes, once you have secured a prefix, longer matches must also be
secured.  this is a good thing.

randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr