Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

[Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>]

On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
>
> > > seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as
> > > path are the only real way out of these problems that does not
> > > teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol.
> >
> > Wouldn't a well-operated network of IRRs used by 95% of
> > network operators be able to meet all three of your
> > requirements?
>
> Maybe I missed something, but didn't Verio say the prefix was in  
> their internal registry, and that's why it was accepted.

Perhaps by "well-operated", Michael was referring to something like  
the hierarchical authentication scheme used by the RIPE database,  
which ultimately provides access control for route objects using RIR  
allocation/assignment data?


Joe