ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?')

Thanks to Lars for this interesting input and results (which I wasn't familiar with). I want to mention another concern with the possible use of hyper-specific IP prefixes, i.e., longer than /24, which I haven't seen discussed in the thread (maybe I missed it?). Namely, if you allow say /28 announ

Re: ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?')

> > - If origin makes a ROA only for covering prefix (say /24) then the /28 > announcement would be considered invalid by ROV and (even more likely) > dropped. Also you get more instances of `invalid' announcements, making > adoption of ROVs and ROAs harder. > AS 10 creates an ROA for X.X.X.X/24 ,

Re: ROV concern for hyper-specific prefixes (renamed from `Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?')

Tom, thanks. I forget to mention the problem of this case ( AS 10 creates an ROA for X.X.X.X/24 , maxLength 28). Security-wise, this may actually be the worst solution: - An attacker can abuse this ROA to perform origin-hijack of the /28 subprefix, just like the origin hijack if AS 10 publishes ROA