Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
> 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.
thanks.
>> 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>.
thanks for this too.
I'll share it on JANOG ML, etc.
Could APNIC also consider providing public record of past resource holders?
This was requested to help in consideration to purchase space (make sure
it's not been used by black-listed ISPs), and to help in sorting out
filtering problems (explain to peers/upstream).
The general feeling was that you have to do the actual testing + be
responsible yourself at the end of the day, but information about past
holders would still help.
Would this be something other operators in the region also find it useful?
izumi