In message <20191223180753.af7f9f79718891d8e76b551cf73e1563.1c863887b3.mailapi@
email19.godaddy.com>, "Fi Shing" wrote:
>You're suggesting that RIR should have reasonable oversight of internet
>resources?
Not really. My comments weer directed rather explicitly at IRRs, which is
a somewhat
You're suggesting that RIR should have reasonable oversight of internet
resources?
That would make too much sense!
In the mean time, here's a brick wall for you to hit your head against:
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/images/BrickWall.jpg
In reality, the RIR (and ICANN) should be
Dear all,
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 12:09 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> I feel sure that other IRRs have some or all of the same issues. RADB
> stands out however due to its continued widespread use.
The above statement is true, and the good news is that there is work
under way to reduce the
Regarding this general idea of having some authority make route
announcements for unallocated/unassigned blocks, Mr. Azimov is
quite clerly correct that Bad Actors could still promulgate more
specific announcements. The solution is obvious. All such preemptive
announcements could be deaggregated
> 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.
this was brought up in the sidr wg when as0
Erik,
Randy mentioned this, but to be very explicit, this policy is not being
discussed in the AA-WG. It was X-posted here to make the members of this WG
aware of a policy being proposed in Routing, so the discussion etc. is taking
place there.
Thanks,
Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
Brian
In message ,
Randy Bush wrote:
>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.
OK. Fine. May we at least be the executioner?
>on the proposal itself, i am of two
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
Hi Petrit & Brian,
Could you provide some insight on the status of this proposal ?
I've seen not much (if at all...) discussion on the topic on the ML.
I've seen that the discussion phase is already passed and we are more than a
month further . . . and even for the AA-WG ML, with no
