Hi Geoff,
On 2011-04-28 17:13, Geoff Huston wrote:
> On 23/04/2011, at 11:51 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>> It is a matter of local routing policy as to the actions to be
>>> undertaken by a routing entity in processing those routes with
>>> "unknown" validity states.
>> That leaves open the possibility that an AS_SET aggregated route (which
>> is by definition "unknown") would be rejected as part of a general policy
>> choice. At the least, it seems that this should be mentioned to ensure that
>> operators are aware of it. This is orthogonal to the fact that AS_SET
>> is intrinsically a security problem.
>>
>> Suggested sentence to add:
>>
>> Operators should be aware that a policy that rejects all "unknown" routes
>> will thereby reject any aggregated (AS_SET) route.
>
> Thanks for your review Brian.
>
> The draft already states "you really should not reject "unknown" routes":
>
> "Due to considerations of partial use of
> ROAs in heterogeneous environments, such as in the public Internet,
> it is advised that local policy settings should not result in
> "unknown" validity state outcomes being considered as sufficient
> grounds to reject a route outright from further consideration as a
> local "best" route."
>
> I believe that this is sufficient in terms of guidance for an informational
> document to say "please don't shoot your foot off!" :-)
It's purely a matter of taste, so I won't push it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
