AW: [db-wg] Draft Minutes of the RIPE 52 DB-WG meeting

Hello Rob,

>
> In the routing working group, Andrei presented a summary of the
> discussion on the lists, but there was very little feedback from the
> floor, or via Jabber, about which direction to move in.

seems to me that the comments from the list were ignored. The problem we
have is mentioned in rfc2725 section d 3


>
> As I recall, Joao said he was going to write a summary of the points
> to consider and put it out to the routing-wg list, where perhaps there
> can be some more discussion.
>
> One of the reasons to approach this with caution is that the current
> behaviour is as described in RPSS (RFC2725), and we'd like to get a
> bit more feedback on why those authentication rules were chosen to
> make a better decision on how to change them.


Ok i looked at RFC2725:

9.1
"For example, when
   authorizing a route object software would look at "mnt-routes", if it
   does not exist, look at "mnt-lower", if that does not exist look at
   "mnt-by".
"

and more interesting:

D.3  provider independent addresses and multiple origin AS


   Provider independent addresses and multihoming arrangement using
   multiple origin AS present a similar problem to multihoming.  The
   maintainer of the address space and the maintainer of the AS is not
   the same.  Permission can be granted using mnt-routes or multiple
   signatures can appear on the submission.



Well the RFC is from 12/1999 , we have now 2006. Things may change!.

Even 1999 people saw the problem and according to the wording in D.3 it is
not clear that the mnt-routes must appear in the route object itself. It can
also be seen that a mnt-routes in the inetobject itself could be used. Or am
i
wrong?

Winfried

---
Headlight Housing Factory  | Rechenzentrum:
Azenbergstrasse 35         | Neue Bruecke 8
D-70174 Stuttgart          | D-70173 Stuttgart
Fon: +49 711 2840   0      | e-mail: wh at headlight.de
Fax: +49 711 2840 999      | http://www.headlight.de