Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

[sandy () tislabs com]

Todd Underwood 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.

> certified validation of prefix ownership (and path, as has been
> pointed out) would be great.  it's clearly a laudable goal and seemed
> like the right way to go.  but right now, no one is doing it.  the
> rfcs that's i've found have all expired.  and the conversation about
> it has reached the point where people seem to have stopped even
> disagreeing about how to do it.  in short, it's as dead as dns-sec.
> so what are we do do in the meantime?

(a) I'd hardly say dead - there's the sidr work starting up in the
IETF with vendor/operator/registry participation.  And there was a
panel discussion at the last NANOG about government efforts to assemble
the right people (vendors/operators/registries/etc) to work on routing
infrastructure security - and prefix origination was one of the biggest
item on everyone's list of goals/hopes/longings/dreams.  
(Truth in advertising: I've been one of those involved in the gov't 
sponsored workshops.)

(b) dnssec isn't dead - there's serious work afoot to get it deployed.
Sweden and RIPE have signed their zones.  There are web sites
that point to work going on, if you'd like to know more:
   www.dnssec-deployment.org
   www.dnssec.net
(Truth in advertising: I work with people who are working on this.)

(z) I think you mean internet drafts, not rfcs.  I don't think
there have been any rfcs (would there were - we'd be in a different
situation), and rfcs don't expire.

--Sandy