13 Jul
2018
13 Jul
'18
12:09 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:44:28PM +0200, M. Piscaer wrote:
From my perspective you are almost squacky clean! I see two invalids 88.159.27.0/24 (invalid, but covered by valid route 88.159.0.0/16) and 94.103.31.0/24 (also covered by valid 94.103.16.0/20). I'm sure there are more, but if you drop these two prefixes it shouldn't result in loss of connectivity because there are covering valid routes.
A patently I needed to publish the RPKI cert of 88.159.27.0/24. Thanks for the headsup.
Yes, it seems that adding a separate extra ROA just for the /24 is better than using "MaxLength=24". Wall of text on what that is :-) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen Kind regards, Job