Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

hi again okutani-san,

>  1. To have a system that allows a third party to confirm
>     "authenticity" of address space. (prove you are the right holder)
>     A third party may mean an upsteam ISP, or to get internal approval
>     by non-tech people within an organization to obtain IPv4 resource.
> 
>     Resource Certificate may provide an answer to the first needs, but
>     may be more studies are required for proving it to non-tech
>     people.

the description of the transfer process using the rpki may be found at
<http://archive.psg.com/071208.transfer.pdf>.  it tried to be simple.

>   2.Information from APNIC to help confirm the "cleaness" of address
>     Records on the past holders of the address space (not only the
>     previous, but all past holders by date) would help at the time of
>     obtaining the resource/trouble shooting for transfered space.
>     The public log defined in prop-050 is probably quite good overall to
>     but hope we can review more on other information which may be
>     required.

by cleanness, i suspect you mostly mean "if i route this, will the
announcement propagate and be generally accepted."  this can actually be
tested empirically.  see a public preso (papers in progress) of the work
at <http://archive.psg.com/070604.nanog-bogons.pdf>.

randy