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/[email protected]/
[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 ]