On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:45 PM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > On Apr 2, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Shane Amante <sh...@castlepoint.net> wrote: > >> So, in the future of the RPKI, as a resource holder, how am I able to "shop >> around" as per the above, to mitigate one or more of the concerns that I've >> illustrated above? Hint: given the, at present, limited number of RIR's near >> the top of the allocation hierarchy, there would appear to be little choice. > > I'm not certain you are describing a problem in RPKI architecture for > the working group: while there is ability to have overlap in RPKI > (as noted for purposes such as transfers and moves), there are still > assumptions regarding regions and hierarchy in the Internet Registry > system that make your perceived problem difficult to solve in the > general case.
Given the RPKI architecture has been based around the "assumptions" you quote above and, to my knowledge, no one has questioned/challenged those assumptions, you may be right. But, if not now, when? > One approach (if it were really an issue) would be to > handle it similar to the DNS with shared registry/multiple registrars > (and the registrars providing the RPKI services you seek), but that > would not likely be a sidr (or IETF) scope work item in any case... Although, if the registry function remains "constrained", as it is today, then I'm not sure that meaningfully solves any concerns, given that function still remains an attractive 'target' for outside parties to (try to) exert pressure and/or operational problems to manifest themself with the potential for very noticeable and widespread impacts. -shane _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
