On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Geoff Huston wrote:
WG chair hat off - speaking as a co-author of the drafts in question
On 21/11/2008, at 3:51 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Roque Gagliano wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Samuel.
On Nov 17, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
Item 1: May BOAs be issued only by RIRs or also by entities further down
the heirarchy? From section 1:
"This document defines an application of the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI) to validate the attestations of INTERNET
REGISTERIES that certain addresses are currently neither allocated
nor assigned to any party,..." (emphasis added)
Internet Registry > Regional Internet Registry. It includes National
Internet Registry and Local Internet Registry. The architecture document
uses the term: "internet registry or LIR/ISP".
The use of the terms NIR and LIR are more common in some regions than in
others. Those areas where NIR and LIR are seldom used hear "RIR" when
"registry" is mentioned. The architecture draft goes through all the
possibilities, but does not introduce the "Internet Registry" as the
generic term. Given the potential confusion on the part of some, it might
be best to inject a parenthetical "(RIR, NIR, LIR/ISP)" in any doc that
uses the generic term.
I hear your request, but the textual change suggested seems to me to be no
better - the generic term of an "internet registry" is used to describe those
entities who perform an allocation / assignment function for Internet number
resources. If Sam's a priori interpretation of the term is more restricted
than that broad intention then I can see some merit in making the change as a
note in terminology, but I don't see it as such a big issue that it warrants
a new rev of the documents just for this point.
Agree not important enough to warrant a new rev on its own, but should be
considered if a new rev is necessary for other more pressing reasons.
But the question still stands, I think. Some entities that receive
addresses are not RIR/NIR/LIR. Or so I believe. Is an enterprise that
receives address space considered a registry, even if it does not
sub-allocate?
Hm. What about cell phones that are being handed huge blocks of IPv6
addresses? Don't know that anyone is thinking of running BGP from their
cell phone, so maybe the question is moot.
I smell a reductio absurdum argument being made here - I don't think it leads
anywhere useful for me!
If you mean the cell phone comment, that was an idle thought that made its
way to my fingertips while I typed. You can ignore it.
I would however like you to answer the question of whether there exist
entities that might do ROAs and BOAs but are not Internet Registries. I
am one of those people who do not normally use the term Internet Registry
and I do not know if it covers enterprises that receive allocations and do
BGP.
--Sandy
Geoff
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
