In message <pine.wnt.4.64.0909180813380.1...@sandym-lt.columbia.ads.sparta.com> Sandra Murphy writes: > > Curtis was suggesting if address space is not as cheap as domain names, > then this scheme would not be used.
Truly competitive and/or reasonably priced would be a more accurate translation of "like domain names". > I picked up on the point that the RPKI does not effect address allocation > fees. Which it doesn't. There is an odd problem with address allocation (that might also be out of scope for SIDR). If there are multiple places to get addresses from (truly competitive) then aggregation may be affected. Perhaps having a small number but more than one within a geographic region would serve both goals. This does not affect the PKI. > But Randy has addressed Curtis's point more accurately, as Curtis was > speaking of the RPKI as if it were a registry, so his comment about > pricing was probably directed to certs, not addresses. At the top level address allocation and registry are the same thing. So if certs are issued with addresses CA and registry is the same at that level. [We are going down a politically charged rat hole.] > I would hope that the RIRs would not charge for certs separately from > charging fees for address allocations. The RPKI will work best if *ALL* > address allocations have a corresponding cert. If that turns out to be a > cost to the recipient, we're likely to see people who choose not to get > the corresponding cert. That would IMHO be a bad thing. Free cert with your address would be nice. A reasonable price would be acceptable. Again, a layer 8 problem. And out of scope. Sorry. > --Sandy Curtis > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Randy Bush wrote: > > >> Prices for address allocations are not affected by the RPKI. > > > > given that at least some RIRs are exploring how and what to charge for > > certs, this is a bit naive. > > > > randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
