I agree wit what Randy says as far as that example goes. OTOH, I do think that it is reasonable for ROA to be a valid way to avoid the need to submit LoA for prefix announcement…
If you have a ROA that already attests AS FOO to be a valid originator for prefix X:Y;Z::/48, then there’s no reason a peer needs an additional piece of paper saying essentially the same thing in order to accept your route. Owen > On Nov 15, 2023, at 18:54, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Randy, yes I read that paragraph and found it accurate in terms of > business decisions, no technology can trump that :) but still wants to > understand if these decisions are based on certain legal practices or just > because its been happening like this. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 13:33, Randy Bush via sanog <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> you may find rfc 9255 helpful in this regard, particularly the third >> prargraph of the intro >> >> It has been suggested that one could authenticate real-world business >> transactions with the signatures of INR holders. For example, Bill's >> Bait and Sushi (BB&S) could use the private key attesting to that >> they are the holder of their AS in the RPKI to sign a Letter of >> Authorization (LOA) for some other party to rack and stack hardware >> owned by BB&S. Unfortunately, while this may be technically >> possible, it is neither appropriate nor meaningful. >> >> >> randy >> _______________________________________________ >> sanog mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.sanog.org/mailman/listinfo/sanog > _______________________________________________ > APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
