> I believe there are indeed considerable IANA implications in this > discussion and this is something that needs to be well understood > when architecting solutions in this area.
perhaps, given the origin of the document, an iana hating section would be more expected. there are only two parties with authority to say publicly what is or is not route-able, the iana, who owns all the special kink, and the public holder of the space in question. this seems trivially obvious. in addition, if there are private routing domains, then there are likely to be corresponding trust systems. as these exceptions will have to be manually configured, the anathema of the wise operator, it would seem prudent to minimize their occurrence. > With that, I'm quite interested in understanding any perspectives > folks are willing to provide. the iana is the root of the allocation tree. hence it should be the root of rpki trust. this is also trivially obvious. it is just not acceptable to some folk who focus on power as opposed to technology. i assume they will not be getting their next /8 from the iana. but pig wrestling <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrestling_with_a_pig> is futile and boring. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
