Hi, Terry. Can you clarify, under what circumstances might a RESERVED prefix be Routable, or an ALLOCATED prefix be Not Routable? In other words, why is the Status label not adequate for the PRI concept you've described?
Also, I think the draft should be more specific about what it means to be "publicly routed". There are cases where RESERVED prefixes get routed between different Autonomous Systems, and it should be more clear when this is considered "public" or something else (private?) in the context of your draft. Thanks, -Benson On 6/22/11 7:46 PM, "Terry Manderson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Donald, > > Packets following the default route (mis?)configured by the zillions (I > _never_ exaggerate ;) of operators is not really the concern I have in mind. > > To me anyone can announce any prefix, however the expectation that the > upstream might accept it (thus it becoming routable) is made up of a number > of decisions. This draft clarifies one aspect of the decision and makes it a > crystal clear interpretation for BGP security implementations and operators > alike. > > Cheers > Terry > > > On 23/06/11 7:09 AM, "Smith, Donald" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Given that many packets are routed due to default routes your category of >> "routable" should probably be announcable. >> Or are you looking for a mechanism similar to the juniper concept of Martians >> where they had a set of rfc1918 addresses "default coded" into their system >> so >> they couldn't be used or routed unless you modified their Martian filter? >> >> >> >> When packets collide the controllers cease transmission AND wait a random >> time >> before retransmission (mostly)! >> >> [email protected] >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Terry Manderson >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:40 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [GROW] FW: New Version Notification for draft-manderson- >>> routing-intent-00.txt >>> >>> Chairs and WG, >>> >>> I seek your feedback on the I-D below. >>> >>> I'd also like to present this to the WG in Quebec. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Terry >>> >>> >>> ------ Forwarded Message >>>> From: <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:31:50 -0700 >>>> To: Terry Manderson <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: Terry Manderson <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-manderson-routing-intent- >>> 00.txt >>>> >>>> A new version of I-D, draft-manderson-routing-intent-00.txt has been >>>> successfully submitted by Terry Manderson and posted to the IETF >>> repository. >>>> >>>> Filename: draft-manderson-routing-intent >>>> Revision: 00 >>>> Title: Signalling Public Routing Intent (PRI) for Internet >>> Protocol >>>> Addresses in IANA Registries >>>> Creation date: 2011-06-22 >>>> WG ID: Individual Submission >>>> Number of pages: 12 >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> This document provides direction to IANA to mark existing and >>> future >>>> IANA IPv4 and IPv6 allocations with generic terms pertaining to >>> the >>>> Public (global) Routing Intent (PRI). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The IETF Secretariat >>> >>> ------ End of Forwarded Message >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GROW mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> >> This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or >> privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly >> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication >> in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy >> all copies of the communication and any attachments. > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
