nanog mailing list archives

Re: Level 3's IRR Database


From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:08:51 -0600

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


Current thread: