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) dean at internetnz dot net dot nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya <sanjaya at apnic dot net> 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, SanjayaSanjaya, 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) dean at internetnz dot net dot nz To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer at umn dot edu 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 ================================================