[88290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Fri Jan 27 12:58:23 2006
In-Reply-To: <B044B507-144C-4F4D-A30E-233374958CFB@ianai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:57:55 -0500
To: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
>
>>> seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as
>>> path are the only real way out of these problems that does not
>>> teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol.
>>
>> Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
>> network operators be able to meet all three of your
>> requirements?
>
> Maybe I missed something, but didn't Verio say the prefix was in
> their internal registry, and that's why it was accepted.
Perhaps by "well-operated", Michael was referring to something like
the hierarchical authentication scheme used by the RIPE database,
which ultimately provides access control for route objects using RIR
allocation/assignment data?
Joe
