[db-wg] Route(6) objects

Hello

Thank you very much for the explanation.
But I think we have steered away a little bit from my original question.

As I can conclude from all the answers earlier, then still my only option if I want my ip transit provider to be able to advertise some /48 within my /32 at random times and for random durations is using /32 as route6 object and hope that everyone in the internet filters "2001:1234::/32 le 48 permit" or "2001:1234::/32 eq 48 permit" instead of "2001:1234::/32 permit"?
Or actually make the 65536 route6 objects (for each of the /48 that fits into that /32)?
Or is there a third possibility instead hoping that AS-s from all over the internet are familiar with this kind of issue and allow /48 prefixes into their routers instead of exact /32 prefix (although the route6 object states that our provider should advertise only /32) or making unnecessary amount(65536 objects for 1x/32) of route6 objects?

I ultimatelly want my ip transit provider to be able to advertise different /48 prefixes at random times for random durations. And want it to pass IRR filtering also, not just rpki filtering in different ASs across the globe.


Lugupidamisega / Best regards, 

Kaupo Ehtnurm 


Network & System administrator 
WaveCom AS 
ISO 9001 & 27001 Certified DC and verified VMware Cloud 
kaupo at wavecom.ee | +372 5685 0002 
Endla 16, Tallinn 10142 Estonia | [ http://www.wavecom.ee/ | www.wavecom.ee ]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Job Snijders" <job at sobornost.net>
To: "Kaupo Ehtnurm" <kaupo at wavecom.ee>
Cc: "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org>, "Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg" <db-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 2:18:57 PM
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Route(6) objects

Dear Kaupo, others,

(Speaking as individual working group contributor.)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:06:30AM +0300, Kaupo Ehtnurm via db-wg wrote:
> Since route6 object is a must and ROA is a should and they ultimately
> fill the same purpose, than why isn't there a "max length" in route6
> object? 

That's a good question!

The specification of IRR 'route6:' objects pre-dates the specification
of RPKI ROAs by a number of years. One explanation might be that the
designers of RPSL-NG simply didn't think of it.

Another aspect is that RPKI ROAs are used as an input into the RFC 6811
Origin Validation procedure (which yields invalid/valid/not-found as
outcomes), but no such algorithm existed when RPSL-NG route/route6
objects were defined. I can see how RPKI ROAs and RPSL-NG route/route6
objects look kind of similar from a high level, but the devil is in the
details: they do fulfill slightly different purposes.

It's important to note that in recent years new insights arose how to
make the best use of RPKI ROAs: last year's BCP 185 / RFC 9319
recommends to avoid using the maxLength attribute in RPKI ROAs.

Porting 'maxLength' functionality to RPSL-NG route/route6 objects would
represent a significant community effort: people would need to write an
Internet-Draft to specify what the field really means, and lots of
software toolchains would need updating. Given that maxLength in RPKI
ROAs was not universially perceived as a good idea, I'm not very
optimistic that porting such functionality to the 'legacy' IRR system is
worth the effort.

Kind regards,

Job