[db-wg] route aggregation and RFC2725

Dear Frank,

On 2003-02-18 16:20:58 +0100, Frank Bohnsack wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> we have three side by side "assigned PI" inetnum blocks 193.17.60.0/24, 193.17.61.0/24 
> and 193.17.62.0/23. To reduce routing table space we want to create only one aggegated 
> route for these blocks instead of three seperated. 
> But the authentication process of RFC2725 does checks exact or less specific routes or 
> inetnums only and will go wrong in this case.
> 
> My question: Is this a known/proposed "feature" or should we think about a modification 


I do not think this was done deliberately. My guess is that this
simply escaped the attention of the authors and reviwers of the RFC. 
This makes sense as this situation occurs quite rarely.
In any case, this is a known problem with RFC2725 and perhaps needs to be
addressed.

Best regards,
-engin

> of the authentication process of RFC2725 to support this case?
> 
> Thanks
> Frank
> 

[...]

-- 
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC Database Group