Subject: Re: [sidr] FYI: I-D Action:draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-02.txt

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:48:28 -0400 (EDT)

Comments on this draft:

In section 2, "covering" and "matching" are used without definition. 
What do YOU mean by covering in this context?  In the document, please 
define or cite a definition.

In section 5, repeat the informative reference to 
[I-D.ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol] as a suggested protocol.

How does the route preference (preferring "valid" over "not found" 
over "invalid") interact with the preference for the longest prefix? 
If I have an invalid /16, does it still take precedence over a valid 
/8?  (That may be another way of getting at the problems discussed in 
the thread about this doc in November 2008.)

-- Sam

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:25:26 -0400 (EDT)

Could you be more specific about which parts of the above draft are 
being claimed as IPR?

Would that IPR claim also apply to draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03?

-- Sam

---

From: "Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:09:38 -0700

Hi Sam,

| In section 2, "covering" and "matching" are used without definition.
| What do YOU mean by covering in this context?  In the document, please
| define or cite a definition.
| 
| In section 5, repeat the informative reference to
| [I-D.ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol] as a suggested protocol.

Ack on both of these. I am updating the draft to issue a new version as
we speak and will take care of these.

| How does the route preference (preferring "valid" over "not found"
| over "invalid") interact with the preference for the longest prefix?
| If I have an invalid /16, does it still take precedence over a valid
| /8?  (That may be another way of getting at the problems discussed in
| the thread about this doc in November 2008.)

Yes. And my answer is going to be the same ;-) The /16 and /8 are
different routes/paths and the validity state is determined separately.
If all the paths for the /16 route on a router are invalid, the route
itself is not going to be present in forwarding (barring knobs of
course). In that case, yes, the /8 route will be effective for all
traffic that would have otherwise matched the /16.

- Pradosh