12 May
2021
12 May
'21
10:50 a.m.
Hi Erik,
On 12 May 2021, at 10:00, Erik Linder <erik.linder@gmail.com> wrote:
is there a need for the ROA object to be identical in length to the route object?
take 41.213.128.0/21 is a RIPE-NOAUTH route object and there is a valid ROA from AFRINIC for 41.213.128.0/17 max length 24
regards erik
The cleanup job follows RFC6811 to match a route prefix: o Matched: A Route Prefix is said to be Matched by a VRP when the Route Prefix is Covered by that VRP, the Route prefix length is less than or equal to the VRP maximum length, and the Route Origin ASN is equal to the VRP ASN. In your example, the ROA should match the route object. I will check whether there is a conflict between the ROA and the route object. Regards Ed