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
===============================================