On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
In message <[email protected]>
David Conrad writes:
[.. snip, sorry ..]
Is this scenario accurate?
I haven't a clue. :-) I'm out of the layer 8 loop.
My understanding is that an entity with a very large address space
would be entitled to run their own registry. If it were run the way
the IRR was intended to be run, then anyone with a significant amount
of address space could appeal to ARIN or ICANN or Jon Postel, or just
the other registries to form yet another registry. Since providers
have to agree to used it (no small hurdle) if address space isn't at
least as cheap as domain names, then it probably won't get any
support. Natious would not count for anything but their own
infrastructure unless they were providing Internet services and
suballocating.
Anyone who receives an RPKI certificate to go with their address
allocation can run their own CA (the rough analogy to a registry). When
they sub-allocate addresses, they *should* issue certificates to go with
it. (If they don't want their customer to multi-home, then they don't.
Giving a certificate grants the right to use the address, including
the right to authorize others to route the address.)
If we have a rooted hierarchy, then people just need to know the root(s),
and use of the CAs below it comes as part of the package.
Prices for address allocations are not affected by the RPKI.
Address space should also have consistent rules and consistent pricing
from the little guy looking for a /27 for the rack mounts in their
basement to the big providers and nations. The most important rule is
"no hoarding" - no allocation for addresses that might be used later
but that can't be justified today. But this is not a techincal
problem and the WG chair would be justified in declaring this
discussion out of scope. (Hi Goeff, Sandy - had enough yet?)
Address allocation policies are a part of the RIR system in response to
their membership.
The RPKI has no effect on allocation policies - those policies should be
discussed in your local RIR. Discussion of address allocation policies
are not in scope for sidr (*) (That's a wg chair statement, if you are
looking for one.)
--Sandy
(*) unless a policy in some way impacts the resource certificates. Can't
think of a way that could happen, but who knows.
What ever happended to IPv6? Is routable address space available to
meer mortals yet?
Are you expecting a new round of conspiracy theories?
Expecting: most definitely. But more to the point, experiencing
already: yes.
Sorry to hear that. Not much has changed in that regard.
As you know there were almost never conspiracy theories or even so
much as ill words spoken regarding the NSFNET program. :-)
Regards,
-drc
Best regards,
Curtis
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
