> My feeling now is that I'd rather not see RPKI-related standards > cluttered with this. If that means that the 10.0.0.0/8 folks have > some homework to do prior to publishing a ROA for 10.0.0.0/8 itself, > then so be it. > > (While this topic did come up just recently in another venue, I have > not been requesting it or even wishing it were so -- just > acknowledging that some of us providers will have some work to do.)
i think we are in agreement on this one. after all, that's why we are paid the big bucks and pigs fly. as i said >> i am not sure i really support this idea as it defeats the basic >> protections against hole punching which we want. and it really just >> supports the lazy who are unable to simply run code against their >> back-end db to gen the roas. and if they don't have the back-end db, >> wuzza wuzza. but here is a hack which i think could do it. but hax r us, so i did suggest one :) randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
