On 26/11/2008, at 2:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Lets say XYZ Bank has a significant address holding, due to their
engineering design they actually use globally routable unique
addresses
for all of their internal infrastructure as it makes their redundancy
and fail-over mechanisms clean.
so they are not harmed if, during transition, others fat finger it
into
the dfz. next.
I wouldn't say they are 'not harmed'. What they consider harm, is
clearly different to a network purist sense.
if they really care, issue a roa for it to their real provider, to a
private asn, to asn 0, or whatever. no one cares, least of all the
owner.
They certainly care. The issue I see with either a AS0 or private AS
use is that it isn't allocated in the resource allocation hierarchy,
unless all RIRs are issued with AS0 and AS64512 through to AS65535 by
IANA, and then the RIRs subsequently simultaneously issued to all RIR
members. Knowing that ROA's can only be issued based on the AS and IP
resources allocated by the parent. This just seems wrong to me.
I made the comment at the mic that this type of de-attestation is
contrary to the allocation hierarchy function as it stands - I guess
people missed the underlying issue I was getting at focusing only on
the label.
Terry
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
