Hi Wes,
In section 2:
"No ROA can match an origin
AS number of "NONE". No Route can match a ROA whose origin AS
number is zero."
I'm wondering if there should be a 2119 normative or two in there?
This sounds like a validation instruction. (eg MUST/SHOULD declare
prefixes covered by an origin AS number of none/zero invalid)
Could you suggest text with 2119 language?
Lastly:
"We observe that a Route can be Matched or Covered by more than one
ROA. This procedure does not mandate an order in which ROAs must be
visited; however, the "validation state" output is fully
determined."
Is there guidance on this in one of the other documents? If so,
please reference it here. Does longest-match still apply? This seems
a fairly big question to simply leave open to implementation.
Please apply cluebrick liberally if I'm being thick.
I looked around in sidr-usecases and origin-ops, but couldn't find an
example. May be we should add one. But is there anything that you are
specifically worried about? All that the text says is that ordering is
not relevant. It's a classic OR operation for the match.
- Pradosh
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
