IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 30 September 2011 03:19 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 8A0D821F8DB7 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, 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 WvbM0E7hz4I6 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8C521F8DA2 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:19:35 -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 1R9Tg7-0000gH-Il; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 03:22:23 +0000
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:22:22 +0900
Message-ID: <m2r52yu32p.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Pradosh Mohapatra <pmohapat@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FDCBC152-8720-4C9C-AD81-0CFC780DB341@cisco.com>
References: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com> <FDCBC152-8720-4C9C-AD81-0CFC780DB341@cisco.com>
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 03:19:35 -0000

> From a partial deployment perspective, it does mean that once a ROA is
> published for an address block (and follows the ops guideline of being
> precise), further sub-allocations NEED to have the ROA
> published. Otherwise, they would be marked invalid and risk being not
> routed.

from draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-10

   Before issuing a ROA for a super-block, an operator MUST ensure that
   any sub-allocations from that block which are announced by other ASs,
   e.g. customers, have correct ROAs in the RPKI.  Otherwise, issuing a
   ROA for the super-block will cause the announcements of sub-
   allocations with no ROAs to be viewed as Invalid, see
   [I-D.ietf-sidr-pfx-validate].

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email