WG Chair Hat _off_
On 18/11/2008, at 10:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Huston wrote:
"I give my authority for AS1 and only AS1 to advertise a route
object for 10.1.0.0/16"
Does the ROA format already permit this
It is my understanding that the ROA, as defined today, does NOT permit
this - i.e. the presence of a ROA does not in and of itself do the
negation of the ROA. i.e. a ROA does not explicitly state "and
everything else is invalid"
or would it require a modification?
I believe it requires a modification - either a modification to the
ROA to say "and invalidate all others" or via a BOA to state "and
invalidate all others"
If you allow this, what about a subprefix,say, 10.1.0.0/24?
I assume that you are talking about a ROA for 10.0.0.0/8 with a
maximum length=8. Again I would say that the ROA as it stands does not
invalidate other route objects.
Would that be precluded from having a ROA with a different AS?
Again my interpretation is that a ROA is a positive assertion and not
a negative assertion about all other possible route objects. If you
want to extend this then the choices are either to extend the
semantics of the ROA, either implicitly or explicitly, or introduce a
new object, other the AS0 concept, or the explicit negation concept of
the BOA draft. The BOA concept makes this negations explicit.
Geoff
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
