[address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Has 2008-08 passed? If not, what now?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Wed Jun 1 23:49:04 CEST 2011
Sascha, On Jun 1, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Sascha Luck wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:02:25PM +0300, Randy Bush wrote: >>> anybody can play with announcements, with potentially global impact. >> >> s/can/does/. happens daily. though almost all are accidents. > > So, a few accidents with rarely any noticeable impact (At least I don't notice any major connectivity issues every day) This could either mean your prefix isn't getting hijacked (others are) or the hijacking is being done in such a way that you don't notice. It doesn't mean that hijacking doesn't occur and isn't a significant problem. RPKI provides an infrastructure that would allow for tools to be built that could address this problem. > Yet, also daily, I read about an attempt by $someone to censor, cut off or otherwise regulate somebody else's internet access. Not sure about daily, but yes, this is a problem. I have absolutely no doubt that if a tool exists that allows politicians to claim they're doing something to solve "a problem", they'll use it. > You have to excuse me for not quite believing that this attempt to impose a centralised structure upon internet routing has anything to do with preventing someone from fat-fingering a prefix > advertisement... It really does have something to do with preventing fat-fingering (or perhaps more accurately, reduces the impact of that fat-fingering). The main arguments I've heard (some cynical, some not) for RPKI have been: - allow for SIDR deployment - allow for the RIRs to enforce their policies - allow for the RIRs to have a viable business model after IPv4 is exhausted - allow the existing address hierarchy model to be enforced (disallow 'alternative address registries') Other folks might have heard other arguments. Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Has 2008-08 passed? If not, what now?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Legal counsel on 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]