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