Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Requests from routing/packeting concerns
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:38:31 +1000
- Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <49995ECE.8000906 at nic dot ad dot jp>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49954E5C.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <49995D7F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <49995ECE.email@example.com>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi Izumi, On 16/02/2009, at 10:40 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
These were major requests from routing/packeting concerns. 1. To have a system that allows a third party to confirm "authenticity" of address space. (prove you are the right holder) A third party may mean an upsteam ISP, or to get internal approval by non-tech people within an organization to obtain IPv4 resource Resource Certificate may provide an answer to the first needs, but may be more studies are required for proving it to non-tech people.
My reading of this, and do correct me if I'm wrong, is the underlying question of:
"What, if any, tools are available that allows my non-technical people to verify that a new/existing customer has this 'new' prefix for which they are asking me to route?"
2.Information from APNIC to help confirm the "cleaness" of address Records on the past holders of the address space (not only the previous, but all past holders by date) would help at the time of obtaining the resource/trouble shooting for transfered space.The public log defined in prop-050 is probably quite good overall tobut hope we can review more on other information which may be required.
"cleaness" is interesting. I see the value in the immediately previous details, however due to the business climate and the way organisations are sold/bought/wound-up I suspect that the information used for trouble shooting, such as calling a 'long-ago' holder to get their upstream to change a filter, may not be all that useful due to ageing of details.
They may sound more like operational details rather than policies, butoperators here feel it's quite important that we have them ready before implmenting this policy for the transfer policy to be work in real life.
I think bring forward operational realities is important. Any policy in the internet space that forgets the operational truths is at risk of being half-baked.
i'll stop here for today...but I'll have to spam some more tomorrow :-P
:-) I don't consider this spam. Terry