This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue Apr 19 21:40:03 CEST 2011
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. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Re: [routing-wg] Analysis of the ‘Maximum Length’ Option in Certification ROAs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]