Since RFC's intention is to provide guidance, i believe that saying "a forged origin attack cannot succeed against 10.0.666.0/24" is a little bit confusing, because this statement is valid even without any RPKI in place.
After all, there is another reference of a non-documentation but valid prefix 10.0.42.0/24 already included and imho it wouldn't do any harm to include one more. -- Tassos Randy Bush wrote on 27/3/17 21:34: >> In some cultures, the number 666 is supposed to be the number of “the >> beast”, i.e. the devil, and therefore a sign of evil. The text >> chooses this number 666 in the prefix 10.0.666.0/24 with the intent to >> imply that the announcement is deliberately evil, disregarding the >> fact that 666 is not a legitimate ipv4 prefix octet. >> >> Of course, I’m not the author, so I could be wrong. > you are, but no big deal. it could have been anything gt 255, but i > knew 666 would catch the western eye. > > randy > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
