On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 06:17:09AM -0400, Sandra Murphy wrote: > > Loose mode A would look like this: > > > > In the case that 10.0.0.0/16 origin AS123 is not in your table, the > > loose mode would kick in and one could accept more specifics for > > 10.0.0.0/16, but only when originated by AS123. > > > > Loose mode B would look like this: > > > > In the case that 10.0.0.0/16 origin AS123 is not in your table, the > > loose mode would kick in and one could accept more specifics for > > 10.0.0.0/16 originated by any ASN. > > > > The major point is that when the valid route is missing, one might > > choose to accept invalid routes. When the valid route returns, the > > invalids are purged from your table. > > > > Or in other words: Proposal is, that when additional 'loose' mode is > > configured, invalid routes are accepted if and only if they are the only > > route to destination. If there is any other route (less-specific) which > > is not invalid, it will be used, instead of the invalid route. > > In your examples, you presume there's a ROA for the less-specific.
Correct. > Here you say "not invalid", which would mean a route that is > "unknown", i.e. no ROA exists. Sorry, with "not invalid" i meant "valid". > Your Loose Mode A relies on the existence of the ROA - you accept more > specifics but only when originated by the ASN in the ROA. I'd like to accept more-specifics, only in the absense of the less-specific ROA covered prefix. > So which do you mean? The less specific has a ROA or the less > specific may not have a ROA? The less specific has to have a ROA, for any loose mode to make sense. Loose mode A & B came into existence 15 minutes ago, its good to discuss what a loose mode could mean. ;-) Kind regards, Job
