On 10 March 2014 18:44, Sanjeev Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Kenny Huang, Ph.D. < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> One scenario can be : ISPs without 1.2.3.0/24 control, receiving anycast >> announced by various sources >> to redirect 1.2.3.0/24 traffic. This scenario causes additional concern >> in name resolution. >> > > Thank you, this is a well-defined scenario to discuss. > > If the ISP is not checking RPKI, how would this be different from (evil > me) announcing > 208.67.222.0/24<https://ri.renesys.com/ri/grad?fn=prefixtool&prefix=208.67.222.0/24&t0=1394433679&t1=1394448079>, > which is the range used by OpenDNS? > > (And if the ISP uses RPKI, and bogon filters, then my announcement will > never affect him anyway) > > Two things, First, Policy SIG is not the right place to define protocol specific address block.
Second, the service that public DNS providers provided and ISPs' routing strategy has nothing to do with RIR address policy. Any protocol/application utilize allocated address block has nothing to do with RIR address policy neither. But if an existence of the undesirable scenario expanded due to official encouragement/endorsement of address policy, then RIR will be liable for the outcome. Regards Kenny Huang
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
