You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.1

Best Current Operational Practices (BCOP) Task Force


[bcop] Fwd: [routing-wg] Fwd: Abstract of the MANRS BCOP

User Image

Benno Overeinder

2018-06-04 21:58:47 CET

For information to the BCOP mailing list.

MANRS BCOP LC is concluded and we move forward to publish the document
as a RIPE Document.

Best regards,

Jan Zorz & Benno Overeinder

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [routing-wg] Fwd: [bcop] Abstract of the MANRS BCOP
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 21:55:08 +0200
From: Benno Overeinder <benno _at_ NLnetLabs _dot_ nl>
To: routing-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net

Thank you all for the discussion and feedback.

>From the email thread we conclude there are no principal objections and
close the LC.

Best regards,

Jan Zorz & Benno Overeinder

On 29/05/2018 15:12, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 09:03:48AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> On 28/05/2018 14:53, Job Snijders wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:16:34PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2018 17:02, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>>>> Maybe I'm missing it when reading the website and the BCOP but where
>>>> does it state to *not *allow /25 or more specifics?
>>> If someone registers a /25, and announces it, and the RPKI ROA
>>> allows it, then what is the problem? :-)
>> I am not talking about a registered /25.  I am talking about someone
>> hijacking your /24 or your /21 by announcing a bunch of /25s. 
> I'm pretty sure the MANRS documentation suggests that you should not
> accept & propagate hijacked prefixes (regardless of prefix length).
> Kind regards,
> Job

Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs