IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] erratum

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 08 November 2023 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C037C15109D for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:30:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id opusc_RNb4bQ for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95BA4C14F5E0 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 2023 14:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1r0r3v-000POt-DB; Wed, 08 Nov 2023 22:30:15 +0000
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 14:30:14 -0800
Message-ID: <m2msvnho95.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZUv_e1xfKT9FG-e-@shrubbery.net>
References: <m2sf5ggcfu.wl-randy@psg.com> <ZUv_e1xfKT9FG-e-@shrubbery.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/z05MpBzlkK_foR0oZMygTTFYYmM>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] erratum
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2023 22:30:22 -0000

>> a friend may have caught an erratum
>> 
>> rfc7115
>> 
>>    Operators should be conservative in use of max length in ROAs.
>>    For example, if a prefix will have only a few sub-prefixes
>>    announced, multiple ROAs for the specific announcements should be
>>    used as opposed to one ROA with a long max length.
>> 
>> should that last "long" be a "short?"
> 
> long seems correct to me.

9319

maybe we are confused about the word "long."  to me, a /24 is longer
than /20.

randy

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status