[176662] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Followup: Survey results for the ARIN RPA
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Dec 8 14:43:29 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 19:43:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAGFn2k2mfiXVBEPjT9gMHmLDeXw9cgnArp9=12V_Eib4Edc1Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Dec 8, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com<mailto:rubensk@g=
mail.com>> wrote:
One could easily presume the ARIN region RPKI deployment statistics are
lower as a result of the RPA situation (and no doubt that it part of the
issue), but as noted earlier, it's unlikely to be the full story since
we also have a region (APNIC) where RPKI deployment also rather low that
and yet does not have these RPA legal entanglements.
It was suggested earlier that this may be due to a combination of factors
(education, promotion) beyond the RPA legal issues that are now being
worked - so that will also need to be addressed once the RPA is resolved.
Are the US litigation risks that much higher than other jurisdictions so th=
at ARIN needs to take a different approach than other RIRs ? If they are, p=
erhaps a confederation design instead of centralized one would help scatter=
those risks ?
Rubens -
It is true that US has an abundance of litigation, and while this doesn'=
t require
a different approach than other regions, it does often mean that we're f=
ar more
conservative in both technical and legal approaches initially. ARIN's =
RPA is
a typical example, in that it has allowed us to rollout the service in a=
timely
manner that would not have otherwise been possible. Now that there is
some operational experience, it's possible to review the experience and
see if a more relaxed risk posture can be accommodated.
FYI
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
