Hi,
> Let's assume an IXP has member A who has customer B, who propagates some
address range. Who is responsible for originating blackhole route for IP
addres from such range propagated to the IXP?
FWIW, my understanding of "Local Scope of Blackholes" from
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7999#sect
one here...
if BLACKHOLE {
if (roa_check(ignore_max_lenght=True) = ROA_INVALID) then
{
reject;
}
accept;
} else {
if (roa_check() = ROA_INVALID) then
{
reject;
}
accept;
}
(Assuming ignore_max_lenght has default value == False.)
Does it make sense?
Thanks
Pier Carlo Chiodi
Hi,
thanks a lot, I've managed to test it and I confirm that works fine.
Can you confirm whether it will be included in 2.0.8?
Thanks,
Pier Carlo
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 16:07, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 02:36:40PM +0100, Pier Carlo Chiodi wrote:
> > Hel
e blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
==270== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
==270==
==270== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==270== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
Segmentation fa
Hello,
I'm getting a "Segmentation fault" error on BIRD 2.0.7 when I use 'receive
limit X'. I've got the error when using either 'action block' or 'action
disable'. In the same scenario, if I change the config to use 'import limit
X' everything works fine.
The error happens as soon as the daemon
Hello,
you might need to compile BIRD with --enable-libssh.
Bests
Il dom 10 nov 2019, 20:08 Brooks Swinnerton ha
scritto:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to configure RPKI in BIRD 2.0.6. With the following
> configuration:
>
> ```
> 200 roa4 table r4;
> 201 roa6 table r6;
> 202
> 203 protocol rpki go
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 04:03:53PM +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> Hi
>
> Here is a patch that should fix it.
I confirm it's working as in 1.6.3 now.
Is there already a scheduled release date for the fixed version?
Thanks,
--
Pier Carlo Chiodi
https://pierky.com
propagated to the
client.
Since I didn't find any reference to RFC8097/rpki-light on the web site,
I was wondering if I missed something or if this is the expected
behaviour.
Configs and 'show route' output attached.
Bests,
--
Pier Carlo Chiodi
https://pierky.com
router id 1
