Some people now appear to want an *implicit* meaning of 'if not in
ROA, then excluded' -but, they also somehow want this to be conditional.
Secondly, there is a semantic difference between 'all which is not
explicitly permitted is forbidden' and 'this is explicitly forbidden'.
We have tried to make an explicit semantic around the word NOT:
NOT prefix <x>/<y>
ie do NOT accept <x>/<y> as a valid route. Thats what a BOA says. its
explicit what prefixes are being knocked out.
Others seem to want an *implicit* NOT. But, it appears to be a
conditionally implicit NOT: how can you decide when it does, or does
not apply?
This is of course two different problems:
1) how do you conditionally flag it does or doesn't apply? The ROA has
no syntax for this
2) what is the scope of the "NOT" logic?
in an explicit (BOA) world, the scope can be any prefix(s) you like:
its an explicit statement of intent around the NOT word.
in a world of ROA only, the only NOT you can have is "anything else"
so its demonstrably semantically weaker.
-George
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
