In message <CAFV686d+rHrTrevDm8sL9h+Nu6TPi8x+jHBv2pL+w- m9gyb...@mail.gmail.com>, Jacob Slater <ja...@rezero.org> writes
>> First, I'm not sure I either understand or am even aware of these alleged >> "forms of permission for announcement {that} are not documented". So >> perhaps >> Mr. Slater could elaborate upon that, for my benefit, and perhaps also for >> that of others who may also be similarly in the dark about what he's >> talking >> about here. >> > >Route objects are not always required. While route objects are generally >preferred and should be used, letters of authorization are still in use >today. You certainly wouldn't see them in a public database (though you >might see objects which claim to be tied to them). Even if you do, they may >well be stale and no longer accurate. I doubt that all (perhaps any?) anti-DDoS arrangements (which often involve apparent hijacks of blocks of address space) are documented with route objects.... ... although perhaps more so in Europe where I believe that some providers build filtering systems from route objects ? -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature