[routing-wg] 2019-08 Review Phase (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] 2019-08 Review Phase (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] 2019-08 Review Phase (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at instituut.net
Tue Mar 3 19:41:44 CET 2020
Hi, On Tue, Mar 3, 2020, at 19:31, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via routing-wg wrote: > I don't think I'm the one that should calculate that. However, if we > have an alternative proposal with the SLURM file, it can be calculated > (approximately) as part of the analysis impact that will be needed as > well, right? > > May be anyone from the community that already has done that job and > integrated the SLURM in their routers, can provide an estimate cost, > and then multiply it for the number of all the RIRs members? > > I believe (I may be wrong) that the AS0 is much cheaper to implement by > RIPE NCC even if it is several thousand euros, than the number of > worldwide folks that will need to use the SLURM in addition to RPKI > (for non-AS0). Let me rephrase: what is the cost to the community of no implementation of 2019-08 at all? It has been mentioned before that 2019-08 in its current shape seems way too big of a hammer for the problem it claims to solve. I personally consider a SLURM file a good middle-ground, but if it boils down either using the RPKI for this or nothing, the latter option is what I support. Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] 2019-08 Review Phase (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] 2019-08 Review Phase (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned RIPE NCC Address Space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]