hierarchical route objects, part 1
- Previous message (by thread): hierarchical route objects, part 1
- Next message (by thread): hierarchical route objects, part 1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Curtis Villamizar
curtis at ans.net
Fri Jan 10 23:39:16 CET 1997
In message <637.852810211 at dns.dante.org.uk>, Steven Bakker writes: > ==> From: Gabor Kiss <kissg at sztaki.hu> > ==> 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 128.0.0.0/1 is obviously bogus so remove it. It was placed there for no reason other than to be disruptive and try to undermine the IRR. If the registry that holds 128.0.0.0/1 won't remove it, then the community that is using the IRR may have to exclude that registry. [big hint sent in Merit's direction]. Curtis
- Previous message (by thread): hierarchical route objects, part 1
- Next message (by thread): hierarchical route objects, part 1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]