WG Chair hat _OFF_ On 07/10/2008, at 10:41 AM, Brian Dickson wrote:
Rather than having: IP_address / length le maxLength (length <= maxLength <= address-family-max-length) this would be IP_address / length ge minLength le maxLength (length <= minLength <= maxLength <= address-family-max-length)
Its isomorphic in one sense isn't it? The described representation lists the prefixes in the maximally permitted aggregate format and by the optional MaxLength parameter which specifies the finest level of more specifics that could be originated from this ROA. Your suggested representation allows a number of aggregatable prefixes to be aggregated as a described prefix, as long as they share a common minLength value.
_personally_ I'm unsure that this alternate representation would offer any superior flexibility in the representation of ROAs.
Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
