[routing-wg]2008-04 New Policy Proposal (Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data)
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]2008-04 New Policy Proposal (Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Wed Apr 30 04:25:32 CEST 2008
>> who signs as-set:? > > If the as-set has a hierarchical name (as described in RFC 2725 and > possibly elsewhere) then the signer would be the AS holder of the AS > named in the hierarchical name form, wouldn't it? nice theory. not reality. >> how does maintainer map to anything in rpki? > > I would've thought, after looking through the RFCs that explored this > topic back in 1999 - 2000, that the maintainer of a inetnum object would > be the address holder, the maintainer of the aut-num object would be the > as number holder, and the maintainer of the route object would be the > address holder, which would map back into the RPKI except the reality of irr use does not always match that. >>> What classes of IRR objects could be generated using the approach of >>> generating IRR objects from RPKI data? >> >> route: > > I'm still wondering if that is a sufficient subset of the IRR > information set. i'll take 80% of the gain for NONE of the pain, which is what ruediger's proposal provides. for those using the irr to generate filters, not changing tools is critical. we know how non-maintained irrd and ratoolset are, and we know how much it will cost us to touch our custom tools. ruediger's brilliant hack eliminates all those concerns. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg]2008-04 New Policy Proposal (Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]