Hi Sandy,
On 13/06/12 2:25 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking as a regular ol' wg member: > > wrt: > >> So if both AS 'C' and AS 'G' originate the 10.42.2.0/23 route and >> both ROAs may exist, then you have a MOAS event. > > The architecture specifically allows there to be multiple ROAs for a single > prefix. That was a deliberate choice from long, long ago. Yes, I understand that - my interpretation and underlying assumption is that MOAS still exist at the desire of a single resource holder. While doing what Randy has documented is certainly possible with the current architecture, I not sure if that in allowing parents and grandparents to be able to assert a security condition of a MOAS without the full buy-in of the resource holder is something that should be recommended. T.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
