[routing-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Agenda for the Routing Working Group at RIPE 62
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jac Kloots
Jac.Kloots at surfnet.nl
Wed Apr 20 18:34:35 CEST 2011
Alex, Randy, On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Randy Bush wrote: > hi alex, > > one thing that interests me which i did not see in your analysis. or > maybe i just need more coffee. > > how many, what proportion of, bgp announcements were for prefixes longer > than the allocation in the roa and were properly described by a max-len? > > as to your choices, i would go with 1 or 2 (make it a mandatory blank > field, forcing the user to make an explicit decision). 3 and 4 are > horrible. Agree, or add an option 5; make a prediction (based on RIS) what the proper max-len should be. Jac -- Jac Kloots Network Services SURFnet bv
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Agenda for the Routing Working Group at RIPE 62
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]