On 26-Nov-2007, at 15:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
humph.... I think this is a surefire way to poison this prefix
forever. if the "IETF" is the body holding the delegation, then
they would be able to sign the ROA... otherwise, the body holding
the prefix (paying the bills) will be signing the ROA... the
system is not prepared to deal w/ anonymous roll/shell accounts.
(see the RBN mess)
The problem I was tentatively suggesting a solution for was the one
where transit providers rely on LOAs (which seems fairly common today,
although I have done no survey).
If/when transit providers start to accept ROAs instead of LOAs, the
generation of ROAs sounds like a separate (although clearly not
completely unrelated) problem.
so, i'm not persuaded that this si a smart or wise idea. its
hardcoding another special use prefix in millions of places all
over the net.
In addition to the hard-coding of that prefix that the working group
has already agreed should happen in draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-*?
that said, i;m sure it will be seen as a provident/prudent way
forward and there will be herds of folks lining up in support.
good luck :)
:-)
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
