Subject: [Sidr] exact match for ROA vs more specifics

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:38:46 -0500 (EST)

If you look at the minutes of the November meeting:

http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/sidr.html

you will see that there was a discussion in the later part of the meeting
about the ROA.  The discussion started out to be whether the resource
certificate prefix should exactly match the prefix in the ROA.  It segued
to a discussion of whether the ROA "allows more specifics or not" (ed: in
route advertisements).

There were speakers on either side (exact match vs more specifics) and
no consensus was reached.  This was to be taken to the list.

Those who were speaking at the mike are hearby urged to speak more
about the topic on the list.

An example to highlight the issue: if you hold a delegation of a /18,
and you anticipate the possibility of advertising longer prefixes,
can you create the ROA for the /18 and it will authorize any advertisement
of a longer prefix, or must you create a new ROA for each longer prefix you
decide to advertise?

--Sandy

_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Larry Blunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:23:03 -0500

Would it be possible to make more specifics an option in the ROA?
It might also be nice to be able specify a maximum prefix length.

 -Larry