[lacnog] IX LAN Prefixes - Should I Automate a Discard?

[Douglas Fischer]

Hello Job!
Thank you for the answer...

Em ter., 14 de jan. de 2020 às 14:13, Job Snijders <job en ntt.net> escreveu:

> Well, the incentives are very much aligned with the network that
> considers the deployment: if you care about this type of problem you can
> easily protect yourself, if you choose to not deploy RPKI OV your ASN
> may face more outages.
>
You are right...
And I'm on a rush to make all as the book recommends(almost there).

But my point is that even if my house is organized, if my neighbors' house
is messy, some part of the Internet will still break.
And even if it's not my problem, my clients will make my phone ring.

What I am trying to do is create mechanisms that make it possible for
resource-poor and low-tech ASNs to do things the right way without much
effort.


> The depency is not correct, you can create a "route-set:" with arbritary
> content, no "route:" objects need to exist.
>
> I'm snipping the rest of your email since it seems based on the premise
> that "route:" objects need to exist.
>
My bad! If you say, I will trust.

@edsongley en gmail.com helped-me to create an array we all the prefixes on
https://www.peeringdb.com/api/ixpfx
Now its easy to put it into a Route-Set.

So, what remains is to define the better Person to create this Route-Set:.

But, if some Random guy would create this "Route-Set:", I wouldn't trust
completely on him.
And if I would create it, I would be this Random guy, and the other ASNs
will not have motivations to trust-me.

Could We expect some institution to assume this?

-- 
Douglas Fernando Fischer
Engº de Controle e Automação
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20200114/d6182708/attachment.html>