RE: [secdir] secdir review ofdraft-ietf-dnsop-reflectors-are-evil-04.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>     > From: Danny McPherson <danny@xxxxxxx>
> 
>     > where's the authoritative source for who owns what prefixes
> 
> This, one could imagining putting together.

The IETF has delegated this to the IANA and the RIRs. So far, the RIRs
have not done anything more than keep the antiquated whois directory
functioning. I use the word "antiquated" in reference to whois directory
services not because of the query protocol, but because of its origins
as a way of auditing network users in order to justify budget
allocations back in ARPANET days. Since that time, there has never been
a serious attempt to rethink the purpose and scope of the IP addressing
whois directory. 

One wonders whether the vastness of the IPv6 address space is sufficient
change for the IETF to write some guidance to the RIRs regarding the
purpose and scope of a whois directory. Or maybe some other method of
signalling the "ownership" of address prefixes.

>     > and who's permitted to originate/transit what prefixes?

The RIRs have taken a stab at this problem with route registry services
but it has never gotten significant support from ISPs. Since the RIRs
delegate short prefixes to ISPs, who then may delegate longer prefixes
in some way, the chain of permission to originate/transit, originates
with the RIRs. Is a new protocol needed for this to work right? Or is
there simply not enough demand.

Note that some RIRs such as RIPE, attempt to maintain a fairly detailed
route registry database as part of their whois directory.

> Second, you're talking about potentially orders of magnitude 
> more data: for each destination, there are worldwide likely 
> hundreds (or more) of ISP's which are likely to be viable 
> backbone transits. (By 'backbone transit', I mean ISP's/AS's 
> which are not even directly connected to the organization 
> which is the source or destination of the packets; e.g. 
> customer A is connected to ISP p which is connected to ISP q 
> which is connected to ISP r which is connected to customer B; 
> q is a 'backbone transit'.)

We have the technology to deal with orders of magnitude more data,
assuming that the task is delegated to servers, not to routers.

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]