As a matter of record, the APNIC implementation allows for creation of
overlapping prefixes in a ROA.
We do not support any change to this.
-George
On 17/11/2008, at 4:27 PM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
Geoff,
My understanding of the discussion at the meeting was that the
proposed prohibition would cover all three cases that you list
below. The proposal was raised by Rob Kisteleki and Rob Austein, so
I defer to either of them who would like to clarify.
Either way, it seems to be a small issue, and so I'm inclined to do
whatever makes implementation of the spec easiest.
- Matt Lepinski
Geoff Huston wrote:
WG Chair hat off
On 18/11/2008, at 8:01 AM, Matt Lepinski wrote:
Two issues came up during the ROA Format presentation at IETF 73:
1) Should the ROA Format draft explicitly prohibit a ROA with
overlapping prefixes?
(E.g. A ROA that says AS # 1 can originate routes to 10/8,
10.10/16 and 10.20/16)
What do you mean by overlap Matt?
a) 10.0.0.0/8 maxlength=9 and 10.0.0.0/24 maxlength=24
or
b) 10.0.0.0/8 maxlength=24 and 10.0.0.0/16 maxlength=16
or
c) 10.0.0.0/8 maxlength=17 and 10.0.0.0/16 maxlength=24
seems to me that b) is the only case where the second item is
completely subsumed by the first, yet all three contain
"overlapping prefixes"
It also seems to me that all these cases are essentially harmless.
My opinion is NOT to put this prohibition into the document,
assuming of course that there is some clarity over what is meant
precisely by "overlapping prefixes" in the first place
Geoff
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
