Blockchain and Networking
mysidia at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 23:27:45 UTC 2018
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:39 AM, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> the problem isn't keeping the database, it's figuring out who can make
> authoritative statements about each block of IP addresses.
That is an inherently hierarchical question since all IP blocks originally
> trace back to allocations from IANA.
Well; It's a hierarchical question only because the current registration
scheme is defined in
a hierarchical manner. If BGP were being designed today, we could
choose 256-Bit AS numbers,
and allow each mined or staked block to yield a block of AS numbers
prepended by some
random previously-unused 128-bit GUID.
However, a blockchain could also be used to allow an authority to make a
a resource that can be made a non-withdrawable statement --- in other
words, the authority's role
or job in the registration process is to originate the registration, and
after that is done:
their authoritative statement is accepted ONCE per resource.
The registration is permanent --- the authority has no ongoing role and no
ability to later make
a new conflicting statement about that same resource, and the
authority has no operational role
except to originate new registrations.
This would mean that a foreign government could not coerce the authority
to "cancel" or mangle
a registration to meet a political or adversarial objective of disrupting
the ability to co-ordinate networks,
since the number registry is an authority of limited power: not an
authority of complete power.
We can have arguments about the best way to document the chain of
> ownership, and conspiracy theories about how the evil RIRs are planning to
> steal our precious bodily flu^W^WIPs, but "put it in a blockchain!"
More information about the NANOG