Towards an RPKI-rich Internet (and the appropriate allocation of responsibility in the event an RIR RPKI CA outage)

Jason Lixfeld jason+nanog at lixfeld.ca
Mon Oct 1 12:23:22 UTC 2018


> On Oct 1, 2018, at 4:36 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
> On 1/Oct/18 10:26, John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Indeed… Hence the question of liability during a RIR CA outage, should the liability for misconfigured ISPs (those handful of ISPs who do not properly fall back to using state NotFound routes) be the responsibility of each ISP, or perhaps those who announce ROAs, or should be with the RIR?
> 
> Any equipment misconfigurations should be the responsibility of the operator.

^^

> Responsibility for ROA's should lie with the resource holder, in ensuring that not only is the information true, but that also all announced prefixes are covered by a ROA.

^^

I need to swap out the wheels on my car.  I think I know better than to read the manual to, say, understand how much torque I should apply to each bolt, or what pattern I should use when tightening the bolts.  Or, I read the manual but decide it’s too hard to understand, and I don’t ask for help in clearing up some of the grey areas.

I change the wheels anyway.  In the end, it looks right.  They roll.  Meh.  All good.

Then the wheels fall off.

There is absolutely no one to blame for any of that but me.

In my view, I see no difference here.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20181001/319ca7f9/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list