Hi Arturo,
On 23/08/11 4:00 AM, "Arturo Servin" <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry > > Who defines that one of the other is routable or not? Defines? It specifies if the prefix is _intended_ to be routable. > > For example, 179/8. It assigned to LACNIC but we cannot claim that the > whole /8 is routable. It would depend in the allocations and the organisations > that are received them to decide if their assignment is or not routable. Anything related to 179/8 and the allocations within that are surely the business of LACNIC. The only thing this is saying is that space within 179/8 is intended to be publically routed. Do you disagree with that statement? Just as 169.254.0.0/16 is intended as Not Routable. Do you disagree with that? > > For the rest, I have the following comments (Version 0 looked very > different to v1 / v2): > > - I see the importance of the PRI in IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address > Registry but > - I do not see any technical advantage to include that information in > the IPv4 and IPv6 registries (as my comment about 179/8) > I disagree, I see advantage in that it adds a completely unambiguous statement of what is routable and what is not. Surely that is helpful for those people beating their heads against organisations who are still filtering 1/8, 14/8 etc.. > > "The IANA address registries currently do not have a uniform and > consistent nomenclature to signal if an allocation is intended to be > publicly routed" > > Because they are mainly /8 (v4) and /12 (v6) assigned to RIRs, there > is no need for any signal or it is irrelevant. I disagree. Signaling the routing intent also provides a perfect reflection on what should be seen in RPKI through the manifestation of RPKI objects. see draft-ietf-rpki-iana-objects. Surely transparency and simplicity there is a good thing! > > > "Work is underway in the IETF to design and document a number of > systems or architectures to facilitate the desire to secure the > Internet routing system." > > Yes, RPKI is the place and technology to do this, not PRI IMHO. I'm not with you on that one. RPKI is just one perceived use of this. > > "Such work will require an explicit statement as to the > intended public routability of an allocation." > > May be (I think it does not), but in any case, the IANA registry is > not the place. Also, IANA does not have that information. Neither RIRs. The IANA certainly should have the ability to say if a prefix allocated or assigned was intended for seen in a public routing context. The question of it actually being seen is not in this scope. > > "This document directs IANA to extend all the IPv4 and IPv6 address > registries to record Public Routing Intent (PRI) as either "Routable" > or "Not Routable". > > IANA does not have the mechanisms to do that. I don't understand your statement. What specifically do you think IANA does not have a mechanism for? This is a registry - it records the routing intent of a prefix. Are you saying that IANA does not have the mechanisms to follow what the IETF tells it to do? > > Also I think that we are going to waters that we should not go (this > is going between the technical and policies fields). Sorry, you have me confused. What policy field does this enter? Please be specific. Because I'm not seeing it. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
