[routing-wg] 2019-08 New Policy Proposal (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 09:42:21PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 07:10:02PM +0000, Job Snijders wrote:
> > 1/ What is the ROI? I think there is only a few prefixes in the
> > default-free zone that are managed by RIPE NCC, but not assigned or
> > allocated by RIPE NCC. So putting this machinery in place might not
> > have that much benefit, while the cost of 'getting it wrong' could
> > be substantial.
> 
> This was my first thought as well, but then I discovered this IPv6
> thing :)

Other than that there is lots of unassigned space in IPv6, and no
shortage, what is the relevance? Did you take a look at how many
unassigned/unallocated IPv6 prefixes (managed by RIPE NCC) are actually
in the DFZ?

> > 3/ Once the resource is assigned, the resource holder can create a
> > ROA.  In the lifecycle of a resource it isn't clear to me what the
> > benefit is to have a ROA covering it when it is not yet
> > assigned/allocated.
> 
> It does stop people from announcing unassigned space and spam from it
> (because the announcement would be "invalid" and no longer "unknown").

I understand it would hinder people's ability to announce unassigned
space, but the question is whether the right balance is struck between
inconveniencing folks that use unassigned space and the risk of
inconveniencing folks that have to deal with the consequences of this
approach.

Kind regards,

Job