[106839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Thu Aug 14 15:30:08 2008
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
To: <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0F2465B4F386241A58321C884AC7ECC078EE9BD@E03MVZ2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:29:59 -0700
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Aug 14, 2008, at 12:15 PM, <michael.dillon@bt.com> <michael.dillon@bt.com
> wrote:
>> And here I thought IANA handed out ASnums and IP address
>> blocks to ARIN (and RIPE and LACNIC and AfriNIC and APNIC and
>> the IETF for specific protocol requirements)...
> We are talking Internet operations, not Internet politics.
Indeed.
> People don't care where the numbers came from, they care
> who actually got the rights to use them, and then what
> those orgs did with the rights, i.e. an IP addr block owner
> may delegate the rights to announce a subset of their space
> to a specific ASnum holder.
Yep. And as with DNSSEC, you, as a network operator, get a choice.
You can configure a single trust anchor corresponding to the actual
address allocation flow and follow a chain of authority down to the
leaf (end user or ISP) allocation or you can configure a number of
trust anchors and figure out how to deal with cross-certifications
resulting from the multiple roots. Ignoring politics, the technically
and architecturally cleaner approach is obvious to me. However, as I
mentioned, it is challenging to ignore the layer 9 politics.
Regards,
-drc
