On 26/11/2008, at 2:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
1, 2, and 4 are uninteresting to me, not worth the additional
complexity.
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.
ROA 203.10.60.0/22-22
the owner of the prefix has spoken. that is what may be announced and
that is all that may be announced.
as nw once said "i did not leave that out because i ran out of ink."
randy
_______________________________________________
In the context of BOA, you complained Randy, that a BOA compelled
people lower, more specific to issue ROA to override the BOA. you
complained, that they are unnecessarily brought into the process and
cannot exist as non-secured routing people, unless they do this. You
complained about the compulsion element.
But, your statement above COMPELS any more specific, to issue a valid
ROA, to prove their routes are acceptable. It has exactly the same
property. Exactly.
Whereas, with a BOA, you can choose to formally disclaim, or not
disclaim, more specifics. The choice is left with the relying party,
*unless* a BOA is issued.
-george
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
