RE: IPv4

["Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>]

Title: Re: IPv4

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.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.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf