Hi > On 23 Dec 2019, at 11:39, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > erik, > >> Personally, I'm not in favour of this policy as I don't like the NCC >> to start to injecting ROA's that are not allocated or assigned to >> members or end-users. >> >> I think it sets the wrong precedence for the community and it could >> open up for scope creep to abuse the system for other usage. So on >> that regards, I wouldn't mind if the proposal would be dropped. > > first, as $subject says, if anywhere, this should be in the routing wg. > let us resist the inclination to make what was the anti spam wg the net > police, judge, and jury. > > on the proposal itself, i am of two minds. while i see negligible > initial harm, it's not clear it will do a lot of good. and i see your > point about the slippery slope of mission creep. > > i do find it amusing that it uses the singular case where an ROV origin > can not be 'usefully' forged. i.e. the attacker can not postpend AS 0 > and have it accepted. but this cute factor still does not sell the > proposal to me.
I agree with the above. Further, 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. So, it seems that these AS0 ROAs will not be very effective. Tim
