RPKI Pilot Participant Notice

Danny McPherson danny at tcb.net
Wed Sep 5 21:23:55 UTC 2012

On Sep 5, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> My interpretation was what Randy implied, and that ARIN
> wants an agreement with everyone who gets a (presumably
> unique to the agreement) TAL to protect ARIN.  That would
> seem like a lot of overhead to maintain to me (since as I recall
> a TAL may never, ever (ok, very rarely) change), but then
> appropriate risk management has always been an interesting
> thing to watch in the (potentially litigious) ARIN region.

I'll let Randy speak for Randy (only he could do such a fine job).  

I do agree with Chris (and many others) that this whole thing falls apart pretty quickly without a single root (e.g., think of the browser CA problem) -- for many reasons.

I'd wager what ARIN is going to do in said "Relying Party Agreement" is tell RPs (i.e., *relying* parties) that they ought not rely to much on the data for routing, and if they do and something gets hosed, ARIN's not at fault -- but I'll wait to read the actual agreement before speculating more.


More information about the NANOG mailing list