[135968] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's IRR Database
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Jan 31 08:43:32 2011
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 07:42:06 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <m21v3t8rtd.wl%randy@psg.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/31/2011 1:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Based on this draft the recommended preference order is:
>>
>> 1) Validation ok
>> 2) not found
>> 3) Validation nok
>>
>> Suppose an operator would use local-pref to achieve this.
>> This intention (preferring validated routes) will break, when there's a
>> more specific announcement that doesn't validate.
>> For example the youtube incident would not have been stopped by doing this.
> i do not understand your logic.
>
> let's try to show the case
>
> 666.42.0.0/16 has a roa for as 777
> 666.42.1.0/24 has a roa for as 888
>
> an announcement comes for 666.42.1.0/24 originating from as 999. are
> you implying that it should be marked valid? i sure don't want it to.
>
> an announcement for 666.42.0.0/16 from as 777 would still be valid.
>
Andree was saying,
666.42.0.0/16 has a roa for as 777
you start receiving
666.42.0.0/24 and 666.42.1.0/24, both unsigned. Changing preference
isn't enough to stop routing, as it's a more specific route and
automatically wins if it gets into the table.
Jack
