On Aug 8, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> RFC3779 was also intended to follow the current prefix allocation system. No > surprise, its validation rules ensure that you can only certify allocations > from what you hold. That made RFC3779 useful for the purposes of providing a > RPKI certification of prefix allocation. Reuse of existing technology that > provides the features you want is generally considered wisdom. Since we are talking about wisdom, knowing why you are doing something is wise. Doing something just because it was done in the past is following tradition. > This prefix allocation system is encapsulated in the RPSL authorization model > that is used in some RIRs. In those systems, you can only create an inetnum > if you hold the rights to a parent inetnum. > > That's the authorization model people have been using in some regions for > decades. I have always found the fact that the RPKI authorization model was > a good match to the IRR authorization model in long use to be reassuring. It > meant the RPKI followed what people had already long accepted, and it meant > that operators should find the semantics familiar. Well, not all IRRs are tied to RIR registrations. In fact, most are not. Reverse DNS might be a better parallel. However, if a particular delegation is lame, the DNS does not consider all delegations of the network holder to be lame. -andy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
