Re: [Sidrops] New Version Notification for draft-sriram-sidrops-drop-invalid-policy-00.txt

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> Take as example the DE-CIX Peering LAN prefix (taken from
> https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/31) - it is not really globally
> reachable, and that is the intention. What we see here though that
> some folks carry it in their IGP
> http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=80.81.192.0 and
> seem to advertise it by accident to this collector.
> 
> These accidental announcements shouldn't be accepted, ever. This is the
> ROA: http://localcert.ripe.net:8088/roas?q=80.81.192.0 - with the
> current DSIR idea they _would_ be accepted if I am not mistaken.
> 
> DE-CIX is not announcing the peering lan prefix for various operational
> reasons, and the ROA should help supress global visiblity, especially
> the global visibility of more-specifics. More-specifics of the peering lan
> are disastrous for IXPs.

who has the authority to issue valid roas for any possibly improper
subset of the de-cix lan?

if someone else announces a possibly improper subset of that lan,
it's a misannouncement and would be marked invalid.

if you hear that announcement and believe it, who's the fool?

randy