[135980] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's IRR Database
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Jan 31 10:16:49 2011
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:15:56 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2tygp5eey.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/31/2011 8:35 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> when there is no roa for the arriving prefix, a roa for the covering
>>> prefix is used. see draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt.
>> Ahh, very good. I think that was the only concern. Presumably that
>> would invalidate the route and it would be discarded vs deprefed.
>
> well, i am not sure you want to discard it. this is where the op has to
> make a decision. in a world of partial deployment and ops and customers
> still learning how to deal with this stuff, should it be discarded?
>
I agree and definitely understand the turnup viewpoint. However, RPKI is
useless if we don't discard invalid routes which are more specific than
valid covering routes. local pref doesn't override prefix length
decisions. Hijacks will continue to occur unless we issue discards... at
some point.
Jack
