[routing-wg] Routing Reg. mess [was: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fwd: Hijack...]

In message <CAA=nHSJt9cjU2vt+Zb=n-=w1AHBqMH_4TZ=DuL5VpWZ8N3HTQg at mail.gmail.com>
George Michaelson <ggm at apnic.net> wrote:

>I think that it is wrong to exclude use of the RPKI signed assertion of
>authority over a resource to drive admission of foreign records.

I would hate to see... as the old saying goes... the perfect being the
enemy of the good.

I personally don't know a damn thing about RPKI, other than the fact
that it involves some fancy schmancy crypto stuff, and crypto stuff
can be made highly secure (which is quite obviously a Good Thing).
However over on the anti-abuse mailing list there seems to be at
least one fellow... a RIPE member... who seems to loath and despise
RPKI.  I don't know enough to understand the exact reasons for this.
I don't know and I frankly don't care.  I just worry that he may not
be alone, and that the implication of that possibility is that RIPE
will be unable to establish a consensus that RPKI should be required,
universally, going forward.

I fancy myself a pragmatist.  I'll be happy with _any_ solution that
works.

As I just noted in my prior posting here, it seems to me that a simple
e-mail confirmation process which involves the registrant of the IP
block for which a new route object is being requested would solve the
problem entirely, even while side-stepping the (perhaps politically
contentious) issue/question of an enforced universal use of RPKI.  If
I'm wrong about that, please describe to me how.


Regards,
rfg