nanog mailing list archives
Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct
From: Steve Meuse <smeuse () mara org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:22 -0400
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:26 AM Jay Borkenhagen <jayb () att com> wrote:
Thanks for the update, but based on that description I'm not certain that you implemented the same thing that pmacct built, which IMO is what is needed by those considering deploying a drop-invalids policy. (Perhaps you omitted mentioning that ability in your description but included it in your implementation.)
Thanks Jay, you are correct. As we were talking through the logic we realized we missed that bit. Internally, we're working though the logic to understand if there is a covering route, is that route valid, and if not, will we recurse and look for another covering route that is valid? Either way, we'll be updating our software with that functionality shortly. -Steve
Current thread:
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Steve Meuse (Mar 11)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Jay Borkenhagen (Mar 12)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Steve Meuse (Mar 13)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Randy Bush (Mar 13)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Steve Meuse (Mar 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) via NANOG (Mar 15)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Randy Bush (Mar 15)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Jay Borkenhagen (Mar 15)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Randy Bush (Mar 15)
- Re: Analysing traffic in context of rejecting RPKI invalids using pmacct Jay Borkenhagen (Mar 12)