In message <CANGgxJp9KkO88sg+90WbHFW5q-bir8KaXCyY1FYv=0mrymh...@mail.gma il.com>, Anne-vivien Paris <a....@laruscloudservice.net> writes
>I think it will be a good idea if we can have a better understanding of >what's going on with these route objects registered under MNT-SERVERSGET. They're placed there so that entities that automatically build filters to block bad BGP announcements will not block these prefixes -- which means that they could be put into use at any time >That can perhaps allows us to clarify what's the condition of the "dubious" >3/4 of IP addresses. This is perhaps a way to deal with hijacking. The automatically built filters contribute to reducing hijacking, which is why it matters that the entries in the database are legitimate. A while back I did some work looking at people who were adding route objects for unallocated IPv4 address space. You'll find a longer explanation in the articles I wrote at the time: https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2015/10/02/badness-in-the-ripe- database/ https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2015/11/02/ongoing-badness-in-the- ripe-database/ -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a Benjamin little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Franklin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
