<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi <br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 3 Jun 2021, at 22:24, Patrick Okui <pokui@psg.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8">
<div style="font-family:sans-serif"><div style="white-space:normal"><p dir="auto">On 3 Jun 2021, at 21:18 EAT, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
</p>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #5855D5; color:#5855D5; margin:0 0 5px; padding-left:5px"><p dir="auto">So, IMO, ROV (either rejecting invalids or doing what you think is appropriate) is a distinct operation from creating ROAs and I believe that at this point in time every resource holder should be creating their ROAs, but implementing ROV is something that it might or might not make sense to a particular network.
</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">Agreed, which is why I said “in general”. Security researchers for example may want to ignore “valids” and mostly concentrate on “invalids”.
</p>
<p dir="auto">However, if in general my ROAs do not result in a decent possibility that a hijack will be dropped (until I go kicking and screaming) then I have less incentive to create them. This is the chicken and egg issue I’ve faced when preaching ROA generation.
</p></div></div></div></blockquote>I fully agree here.<div><br><div>I mean, what is the essence of creating ROAs if no one is using them to stop propagating hijacks?<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:sans-serif"><div style="white-space:normal">
<br><p dir="auto">--
<br>
patrick
</p>
</div>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>RPKI-Discuss mailing list</span><br><span>RPKI-Discuss@afrinic.net</span><br><span>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpki-discuss</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>