This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[routing-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon Dec 23 20:19:26 CET 2019
> as Alexander Azimov pointed out: people can just announce a *less* > specific, which will be "Not Found" even if an AS0 ROA exists for more > specific. And because there is no competing (valid/not found) > announcement they will attract the traffic. this was brought up in the sidr wg when as0 was first proposed. but it is very hard to stop the bright idea train in sidr[ops] or the ietf in general. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space) to be discussed on Routing Working Group Mailing List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]