WG Chair Hat OFF
On 26/11/2008, at 1:34 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Nov 25, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
- you do not want to use a BOA in your environment, and you want to
stop anyone else from using as BOA in terms of a BOA as defined by
an IETF standards document in any case.
For you to come to the list of conclusions above simply because
I don't like the idea of BOAs is quite a leap. I'd prefer you not
speculate what you believe to be my position, and instead, address
the issue which lead to this discussion - convince me of the
positive value of BOAs, which I've yet to realize.
One way to reach understanding in a dialogue Danny is for one party to
to reiterate their understanding of what was said by the other, to
check that there is some level of mutual appreciation of what is being
said. You failed to quote above, and perhaps failed to appreciate,
that this remark of mine that you have quoted was prefaced by the
comment:
"So what I think you are saying here Danny is that:"
Evidently I was mistaken in my understanding of what you were saying
Danny, and I apologise if this process of reiteration has caused you
any personal offense or triggered some personal sensitivity, but,
frankly, if we keep on talking past each other then nothing useful
will result in any case. So I still believe that there is some merit
in attempting to understand the argument that is being advanced here.
So I do want to understand your position, and yes, in so doing I find
it helpful to reiterate back what I understand you to be saying here,
and yes, you may interpret that as speculation on my part, and I trust
you will continue to correct such speculation until you are happy that
I am accurately phrasing your arguments here. If that process is not
acceptable to you then I'm not sure where we go from here, as I
evidently still really don't understand the argument you are advancing
at all.
Perhaps if you'd outline a couple use cases of BOAs I'd better
understand how this is useful and provides more net benefits than
offshoots?
Sure. So here's some use cases of BOAs:
1. I have been allocated 203.10.61.0/24. I do not use it today in any
public routing context. It should not appear in BGP at all. I do not
give my authorization to any AS to originate a route for this prefix,
or any more specific of this prefix. If I generate a BOA for
203.10.61.0/24 then my intention of saying that any use of this prefix
in the public Internet is unauthorized is clear.
2. I have been allocated AS 131074 as an AS number. I do not use it
today in any public routing context. It should not appear in BGP at
all either as an origination AS nor as a transit AS in any AS path. If
I generate a BOA for AS131074 then my intention of saying that any use
of this AS number in the public Internet is unauthorized is clear.
3. I have been allocated 203.10.60.0/22. I wish to ensure that any
more specific advertisement of this prefix is unauthorized. If I
generate a BOA for 203.10.60.0/23 AND 203.10.62.0/23 then my intention
is clear.
And a non-use case of BOAs:
4. I am a wholesale ISP, and while I allocate address space to my
clients from my aggregate address block (10.0.0.0/8) I also permit my
clients to use their more specific prefix at local exchanges. My AS
number is 131072 and I have generated a ROA for 10.0.0.0/8 ,
maxlength=8 origin AS 131072. I do not have a problem with more
specifics of 10.0.0.0/8 being used in routing contexts, as part of my
wholesale stance. I would prefer that my ROA did not cause my
customer's more specifics to be treated as unauthorized routes,
irrespective of whether they are ready to use a ROA today or not.
regards,
Geoff
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
