Dean,
I understand the cost issues involved. However, the RPKI ROAs and the
registration of the non-exclusive users of the prefix is what
distinguished this from a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF
Review to be made. If you remove that part of the proposal then you
should include how you intend to proceed on the issue of IETF Review, or
clarify how this is not a special-purpose allocation that needs IETF Review.
Here are a few references;
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2860
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6890
http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry
Thanks.
On 2/4/14, 16:46 , Dean Pemberton wrote:
Thank you for the reply.
I can see how the process weight could vastly change the cost of
implementation. To that end to co-authors have a proposed solution.
Upon careful consideration of the underlying reasoning behind this
proposal, the RPKI section may not be required.
It does not make sense to attempt to protect this prefix from
hijacking when by it's very nature it's available for non-exclusive
use.
We will remove the references RPKI and send an updated draft as soon
as possible.
Regards,
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
[email protected]
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dean and all,
My apologies for the delayed reply.
On the cost of extending the RPKI system to cover the need of this proposal, it
really depends on the degree of automation desired in managing the registration
of this particular block. A fully automated process will not cost much at all.
Any manual oversight of the process will likely increase the cost
significantly. Any idea how heavy/lightweight the registration process should
be?
Regards,
Sanjaya
Sanjaya, Gaurab has bought to light an important issue which is
central to this proposal. Could I request information regarding the
marginal cost of creation of an additional RPKI ROA to an existing
allocation be made public to the list. I appreciate that exact
figures may be difficult to obtain given the tight time constraints,
to make this easier, an upper and lower bound on this cost would also
be fine
Once again, thanks for bringing up this issue Gaurab.
Regards,
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
[email protected]
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
