On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 15:01 Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com> wrote:
On 2023-06-14 02:46, David Farmer wrote:
I think we should hold off publishing one just yet
Do you have a particular reason for thinking we should hold off? Is there something you're worried about breaking?
While I take your point that not everyone is doing it, that APNIC blog post definitely shows that some places *are* doing it.
I think I’m just being cautious. I’d feel much better with a published BCP recommending how IXes should publish ROAs or at least a discussion of the pro and cons. I’ll note a conflict between what the APNIC Blog and RFC 6483 say about the proper maxlength for an AS 0 ROA. It’s nagging little details like that, that make me want to be cautious. I think if you publish a ROA with the assigned ASN then you want the maxlength to be the assigned length, but for an AS 0 ROA you want a maxlength of 32 for IPv4 and 128 for IPv6 like RFC 6483 says. However, the idea that some IXes publish both an AS 0 and one for the assigned ASN, makes me wonder, and want to be even more curious. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================