Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Off-topic (was Re: [PDWG-Appeal] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI R)

S. Moonesamy sm+af at
Sat Apr 10 05:41:05 UTC 2021

Dear David,
At 01:50 PM 08-04-2021, David Conrad wrote:

>To be clear, it isn't a question of the

>finiteness of the number space (the name space

>is also finite, although much larger), it's a

>question about how the uniqueness is

>implemented. In the namespace, it is done via

>the resolvers, typically root hints/KSK. In the

>numbering space, it is done via announcement

>made by network operators. The key difference is

>that in the namespace, name uniqueness imposed

>by a resolver only impacts those who use that

>resolver. In the case of numbering, at least

>historically, announcements are propagated

>beyond the resolver-equivalent (i.e., edge

>routers), so the numbering equivalent of "name

>collisions" is detectable much earlier and can

>have more impact. With the deployment of RPKI,

>the model changes somewhat and the fact that all

>5 RIRs now claim 0/0 increases the risk of

>"alternative roots" with potential conflicts in

>the (wildly unlikely) event that cooperation of the RIRs break down.


>Of course, this is unrelated to the topic at hand.

I disclosed affiliation in line with the principle of transparency.

There are different aspects to consider when it
comes to RPKI. One of them is how the
identifiers are administered. There is delegated
responsibility to the Regional Internet
Registries in the current Internet Numbers
Resources Registry System. There is a need for
coordination between the five Regional Internet
Registries to ensure that no two or more
registries allocate the same identifier [1].

It has been several years since I showed any
interest in the technical discussions about
RPKI. However, I read the recent ICANN study
about it. I gather that the discussion (please
see above) is about trust anchors [2] and relying
parties. The relying party, which is the network
operator, decides whether to trust the publisher
of the trust anchor. For what it is worth, the
"alternative roots" is a topic of interest in DNS
debates instead of RPKI debates.

S. Moonesamy

1. The discussion is about address space in this forum.

Board Chair, AFRINIC

More information about the RPD mailing list