> There is a difference. > Invalid: someone is certified to own it and someone ELSE is originating. > Unknown: No one is certified owner.
Yes, I know that --but when someone says this: > I agree with John's observations. We need to stop making the > statement "no roa == no route", because it's simply not true. In response to a paper that says removing ROAs is a form of DoS, or that there are potential problems in the space of the relationship between the registry and the address owner, then we've moved from "unknown," to "contested." The response given essentially says, "don't worry about attacks, because in the case of attacks, we'll just ignore those ROA thingies." If that's the case, then why bother with the ROAs in the first place? Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too... Either ROAs mean something, and attacks against the ROA system are a real threat, or the attacks are not worth worrying about --in which case, the ROAs themselves don't mean anything from day one. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
