At Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:59:41 +0800, Yu Fu wrote: > > We have issued ROA1 for AS1-> IP Prefix1 five minutes ago. Then we want to > issue ROA2 for AS1-> IP Prefix2. As you described below, we need to include > ROA1 in the new set when we are issuing the ROA2. But AS1 has not been > authorized to announce IP prefix2. So we are failed to issue the ROA2. And > the ROA1 are also failed for issuing as together with the ROA2. This will be > a mistake for this use case.
Not sure I really understand your question. Taking a guess, you're saying that, when you tried adding a ROA that should fail (because it doesn't have the necessary resources), this somehow broke an existing ROA. That would indeed be a bug, but I tried setting up a regression test for that specific scenario and, as expected, was not able to get it to fail. So I suspect there's something else going on. Note: The sidr@ietf.org list is probably not the correct place to be asking about user interface details of a particular implementation. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
