The problem as I see it is that we have spotted the iceberg and we face a
choice, at this point we still have time to steer away and avoid it, instead we
seem to have people attempting to legislate the iceberg out of existence.
People have traded IPv4 address blocks as assets with a financial value for
some time. There is plenty of bankruptcy and divorce law precedent to establish
this.
My concern with respect to certificates is that at the current time
certificates are not used in BGP. If anyone tries to use the introduction of
certificates to establish a power that the stakeholders do not recognize as
valid the result will be to stall deployment.
The system becomes directly analogous to the value proposition of SDMI to the
manufacturers of MP3 players: 'deploy our security technology so that we can
re-establish control that we have lost'.
________________________________
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch(_at_)muada(_dot_)com]
On 8-aug-2007, at 12:07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Routing certificates are simple. If HP "sells" (lends, leases,
gifts, insert-favourite-transaction-type-here) address space to
someone, HP issues a certificate (or set of certificates) saying
that this is how HP wants the address space to be routed; the fact
that the routes point to non-HP facilities is nothing that the
route certificate verifiers can (or should) care about.
If this is how it works, then apparently you CAN de facto own address
space after all.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf