Re: Level 3's IRR Database

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 1/31/2011 1:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Based on this draft the recommended preference order is:
> >
> > 1) Validation ok
> > 2) not found
> > 3) Validation nok
> >
> > Suppose an operator would use local-pref to achieve this.
> > This intention (preferring validated routes) will break, when there's a
> > more specific announcement that doesn't validate.
> > For example the youtube incident would not have been stopped by doing this.
> i do not understand your logic.
>
> let's try to show the case
>
>     666.42.0.0/16 has a roa for as 777
>     666.42.1.0/24 has a roa for as 888
>
> an announcement comes for 666.42.1.0/24 originating from as 999.  are
> you implying that it should be marked valid?  i sure don't want it to.
>
> an announcement for 666.42.0.0/16 from as 777 would still be valid.

Andree was saying,

666.42.0.0/16 has a roa for as 777

you start receiving

666.42.0.0/24 and 666.42.1.0/24, both unsigned. Changing preference 
isn't enough to stop routing, as it's a more specific route and 
automatically wins if it gets into the table.


Jack