Re: hierarchical route objects, part 1

[Steven Bakker <]

==> From: Gabor Kiss kissg@localhost 
==>       Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:28:52 +0100 

CA> I disagree that this is a good idea. If I register the following route
CA> object (which actually exists):
CA> 
CA> route:       128.0.0.0/1
CA> descr:       HALF-DEFAULT-ONE
CA> origin:      AS1800
CA> advisory:    AS690 1:1800 2:1239
CA> mnt-by:      MAINT-AS1800
CA> mnt-lower:   MAINT-AS1800
CA> 
CA> nobody else can register any route objects.

GK> This can be prevented by this object
GK> route:     0.0.0.0/0
GK> descr:     for authorisation purposes
GK> origin:    AS0
GK> mnt-lower: MAINT-INTERNIC
GK> etc.
GK>
GK> Internic (or whatever else) may delegate maintainer rights as well
GK> as allocates address ranges.

That still doesn't help you if the 128.0.0.0/1 is already registered (which 
it is); I imagine the proposed auth scheme would look for the most
specific enclosing route object, which is 128.0.0.0/1 and not 0.0.0.0/0
(for most routes nowadays anyway).

			Steven