Re: [44net] NSP bugging me to use RPKI for my /24 grant

John, On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:00 PM John Gilmore via 44Net < 44net(a)mailman.ampr.org&gt; wrote: False, BGP as used on the Internet requires an Autonomous System Number. These numbers are issued by IANA, and further downstream by RIR's; such as ARIN in North America. An RF equivalent would be the ITU followed by the FCC/NTIA and finally state repeater coordination groups* (this is not 100% accurate but serves as a quick analogy)*. One could argue at a local level frequency allocations are "decentralized", but in reality they are not. The protocol itself does have an allocation of "private ASN's", which aren't designed for usage on the internet - as the vast majority of providers filter these as a industry best practice. The protocol itself is very much decentralized in nature, however the operational usage on the internet is very much centrally coordinated and administered. It is true that each BGP speaking organization can choose their own routing policy. This choice in routing policy has long existed, well before RPKI. False, RPKI exists for RIR's to continue to have a business model - it was never intended to break the globally distributed BGP protocol. If anything, RPKI exists to provide a global documentation trail of acceptable prefixes which abide by the trust ring, explicitly don't, or are of a neutral nature *(neither positive or false positive).* RPKI puts the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), at the top of a newly False, the RIR's were already "at the middle" of this trust chain *(IANA technically being the top)* - nothing new here. These organizations have long been the stewards of modern IP space, RPKI is a formalization of this documentation trail in a machine readable format, which operators can choose to use in their routing policies. The same could be said for ARDC, the steward of the remaining AMPRnet IP space. The level of transparency of all of the RIR's does vary, but they're certainly more forthcoming then ARDC has ever been. A good example is the lack of board meeting minutes, no published budget or P&L, etc. My own personal operational experience is limited to ARIN and RIPE, both of these organizations ultimately do what their members ask of them - though sometimes with a strong legal focus *(ARIN more so than RIPE, though that seems more cultural to ARIN being a US entity operating in a US legal system). *They are great stewards of a shared resource, not perfect but their involvement has not hampered the internet's growth. Currently the RIRs have power over IP address allocations only in Can ARDC publicly admit that remaining allocations are not under ARIN stewardship *(either under an LRSA or RSA)*? The ARIN whois database shows updates as recently as a few weeks <https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/ARDC> ("Last updated 2020-05-01") ago for the ARDC organization record. Generally ARIN facilitates these changes via a web portal or API, these services are only available to ARIN members, which execute an Registration Services Agreement <https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa_faq/>. It's highly likely that the Amazon transaction required that the "left over" prefixes be formalized with ARIN, likely with an executed RSA contract. Again, as the steward of this space - ARDC could choose to be more transparent with the operational nature of the transaction. Maybe instead of focusing on your personal war against legacy prefixed holders and legitimacy of RIR's, instead focus on the real operational concern - thank you. Several large tier 1 providers have begun filtering based on RPKI data, such as NTT, ATT, and many others. Does ARDC have a plan to support ROA's? --Matt