[135896] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3's IRR Database
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sun Jan 30 17:09:51 2011
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:08:51 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4D45CE4A.5090800@foobar.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/30/2011 2:47 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I'm concerned that if we're trying to avoid another Youtube affair,
> the RPKI policy acceptability criteria will have to be so strict that
> this may have a serious effect on overall reachability via the internet.
Not really. Just a simple, if route invalidly signed, drop it. If route
validly signed, prefer it over unsigned. That allows people to choose to
protect their routes, while the vast majority of routes don't need
protecting. I haven't seen the proper mechanism, though it may exist, to
say (hey, I already have a route which while not as specific was signed,
so bye bye).
Jack
