[156075] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Wed Sep 5 17:24:42 2012
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQzQBTrfQ_8tRTRVLMg95kMLtiiZ2rwwmqkZKyd6ZHECDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:23:55 -0400
To: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
>=20
> My interpretation was what Randy implied, and that ARIN
> wants an agreement with everyone who gets a (presumably
> unique to the agreement) TAL to protect ARIN. That would
> seem like a lot of overhead to maintain to me (since as I recall
> a TAL may never, ever (ok, very rarely) change), but then
> appropriate risk management has always been an interesting
> thing to watch in the (potentially litigious) ARIN region.
I'll let Randy speak for Randy (only he could do such a fine job). =20
I do agree with Chris (and many others) that this whole thing falls =
apart pretty quickly without a single root (e.g., think of the browser =
CA problem) -- for many reasons.
I'd wager what ARIN is going to do in said "Relying Party Agreement" is =
tell RPs (i.e., *relying* parties) that they ought not rely to much on =
the data for routing, and if they do and something gets hosed, ARIN's =
not at fault -- but I'll wait to read the actual agreement before =
speculating more.
-danny=
