Skip to main content

Problem Statement and Considerations for ROAs issued with Multiple Prefixes
draft-yan-sidrops-roa-considerations-03

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
Expired & archived
Authors Zhiwei Yan , Randy Bush , Guanggang Geng , Jiankang Yao
Last updated 2020-03-13 (Latest revision 2019-09-10)
Replaced by draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations, draft-ietf-sidrops-roa-considerations, RFC 9455
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Additional resources
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

The address space holder needs to issue an ROA object when it authorizes one or more ASes to originate routes to multiple prefixes. During the process of ROA issuance, the address space holder needs to specify an origin AS for a list of IP prefixes. Besides, the address space holder has a free choice to put multiple prefixes into a single ROA or issue separate ROAs for each prefix based on the current specification. This memo analyzes and presents some operational problems which may be caused by the misconfigurations of ROAs containing multiple IP prefixes. Some suggestions and considerations also have been proposed.

Authors

Zhiwei Yan
Randy Bush
Guanggang Geng
Jiankang Yao

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)