I'm against this exact match requirement - I think its a case of
semantic overload in mixing basic authorities (permission to
originate) with routing policy (explicit nomination of what prefixes to route).
However if we have a "don't care" bit in the ROA to allow a prefix
controller to allow the AS to originate the route any way they want
then I'd be happy.
Geoff
At 07:30 AM 24/02/2007, Stephen Kent wrote:
I'm in favor of an exact match requirement when talking about ROAs
and route advertisements. This helps ensure that matching the ROA
against a prefix is intentional, not an accident. An address space
holder can always generate additional ROAs with exactly the right
prefixes to match the intent of the authorization.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
