[175631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN / RIR Pragmatism (WAS: Re: RADB)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dmitry Burkov)
Sun Oct 26 09:45:25 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru>
In-Reply-To: <B34853C1-9A1C-4B6A-B05F-694556F205EB@arin.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 16:45:09 +0300
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
it's just a consequence that our initial idea was just about to protect =
allocations of our members - not about secure routing at all
On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:40, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> 20% coverage in lacnic low? how do ipv6 and dnssec compare (which is
>> damned sad)? over 2,000 in ripe and over 8%? how does that compare =
to
>> ipv6? =20
>>=20
>> arin, 388 and 0.7%, a joke.
>=20
> LACNIC numbers (as a percent) are quite good, but my question=20
> was why only RIPE has the very impressive total count of ROAs.
> You can clearly point to ARIN's legal treatment of the risks involved,=20=
> but that is not applicable in the APNIC case....
>=20
> You don't feel there's any correlation between RIPE's IRR approach=20
> and their RPKI success? =20
>=20
> /John
>=20
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
