This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
drc at virtualized.org
Wed May 4 00:23:30 CEST 2011
Martin, On May 3, 2011, at 10:22 AM, Martin Millnert wrote: > The primary purpose of IANA, RIRs and LIRs, when it comes to IPv4/v6 > and AS numbers, is to organize resources globally so that there are no > collisions (uniqueness). If uniqueness was the primary role of the IR system, it would be far easier/cheaper/more efficient to have a trivial web service that allocates numbers sequentially on demand. We don't have that because the IR system is also concerned with conservation and routability. Since both of these latter two concerns are subjective, an elaborate (some might even say Byzantine) policy definition structure has evolved to define 'appropriate' (for some value of that variable) levels of both. (One might argue that at least in the context of IPv4, the conservation goal no longer applies since there is no longer anything to conserve, but that's probably a topic for a different thread). Today, since the IR system has little in the way of enforcement capability, this system primarily works via the "consent of the governed" (where 'the governed' tends to be the larger ISPs). RPKI+SIDR potentially provides for a more effective enforcement mechanism than has existed to date. The advantages of this are clear: it would allow for increased security in the routing system, permitting greater control in how numbering resources are interpreted by relying parties. The downsides are that it allows for increased security in the routing system, theoretically permitting the imposition of policies that may be objectionable to some. > WIth IPv4 and to some extent AS numbers, > there's an additional point of rationing them out, but that is mainly > a side-effect of them being varying degrees of finite resources. > IPv6 however, while not infinite, is certainly sufficient for every > person on the planet. There is no finite resource that folks can't come up with policies that result in the resource becoming scarce. Regards, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]