I hope that isn’t what DT is trying to say, because origin validation doesn’t work like that.
Something of a “backstop” ROA? If the ROA for the real origin should disappear, accept no alternatives??? Also interesting are the /13-13 and /11-11 ROAs for the same P/O pair. Maybe this is a new party game - guess the routing policy given a set of ROAs. dougm — Doug Montgomery, Mgr Internet & Scalable Systems Research at NIST/ITL/ANTD On 3/16/15, 4:01 PM, "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]> wrote: >Huh. I don't really understand what DT is trying to say here -- >80.128.0.0/11 can be announced from 3320, but shouldn't be used? > >Rudiger? > >W > >On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: >> go to http://rpki.me/quality.html#dl,RIPE,yellow,0,80.128.0.0/11,11 and >> click on the + to expand. make kinky corner features and you find >> yourself in twisty corners. it's correct in spec, but yuchhh. >> >> randy >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > > >-- >I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad >idea in the first place. >This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing >regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair >of pants. > ---maf > >_______________________________________________ >sidr mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
