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:
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database, (continued)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Christopher Morrow (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jared Mauch (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Andree Toonk (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Christopher Morrow (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 31)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Jack Bates (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Martin Millnert (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database ML (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Randy Bush (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Martin Millnert (Jan 30)
- Re: Level 3's IRR Database Carlos M. Martinez (Jan 31)