> On 12 Feb 2024, at 6:01 pm, Richard Laager wrote:
>
> On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>> I was making an observation that the presentation material was
>>> referring to "RPKI-Invalid" while their
> On 12 Feb 2024, at 3:14 pm, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> At NANOG 90, Merit presented on their IRRd v4 deployment. At the
> microphone Geoff Huston raised a comment which I interpreted as:
>
>"Can an exception be made for my research prefixes?"
>
no - I was
On 2024-02-12 18:12, Job Snijders wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:01:35PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
I was making an observation that the presentation material was
referring to
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:01:35PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > > I was making an observation that the presentation material was
> > > referring to "RPKI-Invalid" while their
On 2024-02-12 15:18, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
I was making an observation that the presentation material was
referring to "RPKI-Invalid" while their implementation was using
"ROA-Invalid" There is a difference between these two
On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:07:52PM -0500, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 2024, at 3:14 pm, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> > At NANOG 90, Merit presented on their IRRd v4 deployment. At the
> > microphone Geoff Huston raised a comment which I interpreted as:
> >
> > [snip]
>
> no - I was
Dear all,
At NANOG 90, Merit presented on their IRRd v4 deployment. At the
microphone Geoff Huston raised a comment which I interpreted as:
"Can an exception be made for my research prefixes?"
There are two sides to this:
INSERTING RPKI-invalid route/route6 objects
7 matches
Mail list logo
