Re: hierarchical route objects, part 1

Curtis,

> Curtis Villamizar writes :
> 
> Your black hat example is also flawed.  At the top of the heirachy can
> be 0/0 registered to IANA and withdrawn (not announced).  The
> registries themselves can have top level objects below that.  In order
> to make any changes, you need to have been given authorization from a
> higher level.  You can then assign authorization to lower blocks to
> other parties.

This works for IP network objects since the registries need to add these
objects manually anyway.

This is not that obvious for 'route' objects. Are you proposing that the
registries have to approve (manually) all the route objects that are
in the route hierarchy directly below their own allocated space ?

Or do you have a way to solve this in an automatic way?
(this is not an attack, I sincerely hope that anybody can come up with
 something that works)

Note that the InterNIC's IP registration data makes it very difficult to
use the data on allocated IP space and then the connection between
allocated IP space and routes is not always that clear. We could create
special maintainers for ISPs that can only act on address space with
origin AS'es that they own. However, I don't think that anybody is
interested in creating more confusion by creating all kinds of kludges
like this,

David K.
---