Stephen Kent wrote: > Oleg, > > Glad to see we are converging, a bit. >>> ... >>> But, irrespective of this detail, isn't it reasonable to use the number of >>> (live) ASes as the basis for >>> the number of pub points (CAs)? To first order, any entity that needs to be >>> explicitly represented in the >>> RPKI is associated with an AS#, whether they are an LIR, a PI space holder, >>> or a multi-homed holder >>> of PA space (from an LIR). >> >> I don't know. I see that the 1 AS = 1 CA is often referred as reasonable. >> But I do not see why an AS operator, using single AS#, cannot serve multiple >> organisations that got their address space from >> somewhere else. >> So all these organisations will have CAs, will create ROAs, but would not >> operate own ASes. > In what sense do you mean "serve" here? Do you mean that the organizations in > question have, for example, > PI space but no AS#'s, and thus their ROAs all point to the AS# of the AS > operator? Yes > Is that common? This is what I don't know. I think we need operators to tell.
I'm not opposed to the 1AS = 1CA idea. It's just that in my mind RPKI associates with IP space holders, not AS operators, because this is how we do RPKI on RIR level. And on this level we already have more distinct IP space holders than the number of active AS. I don't know much about LIR to end user level, maybe the number of CAs there will be insignificant. > > Also, I should amend my comment above, slightly. When we model the number of > pub points (CAs) we do > add in a factor to account for orgs that have allocations from multiple > sources, but may be represented > by a single AS#. > > Steve > -- Oleg Muravskiy RIPE NCC
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
