So -- what did happen to Panix?

Joe Abley jabley at isc.org
Fri Jan 27 17:57:55 UTC 2006



On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>
>>> seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as
>>> path are the only real way out of these problems that does not
>>> teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol.
>>
>> Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
>> network operators be able to meet all three of your
>> requirements?
>
> Maybe I missed something, but didn't Verio say the prefix was in  
> their internal registry, and that's why it was accepted.

Perhaps by "well-operated", Michael was referring to something like  
the hierarchical authentication scheme used by the RIPE database,  
which ultimately provides access control for route objects using RIR  
allocation/assignment data?


Joe



More information about the NANOG mailing list