[175581] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN / RIR Pragmatism (WAS: Re: RADB)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Sweeting)
Fri Oct 24 11:23:46 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <c96c10cc0c40fdb7a20b977a3cc01b97@tcb.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:23:38 -0400
From: John Sweeting <john.sweeting@gmail.com>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>,
nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> wrote:
> On 2014-10-23 12:33, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> Sounds like you want to see the rirs make sure they get rpki work
>> dine and widely available with the least encumbrances on the network
>> operator community as possible.
>>
>
> Or focus on more short/intermediate term returns like fortifying all the
> existing systems and automating processes that are already deployed and
> focus on ROI of members and operational buffers required by the community
> _today. E.g., IRR training and investment rather than RPKI, which this
> thread began with.
>
makes perfect sense to focus on validating existing systems such as IRR.
Seems like very low hanging fruit with a lot of benefit and a good ROI
>
> I'd continue and say in-addr.arpa or the like for resource certification
> because RPKI is so ugly, silly without a single root aligned with number
> resource allocations, etc.., but that'd require response cycles I'm not
> going to spend there.
>
> Did you see wes's slides / talk at the last nanog?
>>
>
> I did (after).
>
> Aside, I understand why the ARIN board did what they did with the RPA and
> I don't blame them -- it seemed well considered to me, but that's just me.
>
> Reminded of Taleb's "Fat Tony" quote [paraphrased]: If the pilot ain't on
> the plane, you probably don't want to get on it,
>
> -danny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
