Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1?

[bmanning () ISI EDU]

> Ok, Larry, let me ask the $10,000 question:
>
>       If I announce 204.137.64/20 to you, how do you know if I am
>       authorized to do so or not?
>
> The answer is, absent something LIKE a NACR (ie: RR, RA, etc) you don't.
>
> So now, if you *don't know*, do you take it or don't you?
>
> I'm not arguing against NACRs and RAs.  In fact, just the opposite.  If
> you're going to filter, and I understand that it can serve a purpose, then 
> you *MUST* trust some authoritative source, and that source must have the
> information to make the decision.

Even with a route registry, you have no way of knowing, apriora, that
the registration is correct.  There have already been "helpful" attempts
to register information for others w/o their consent.

Eric C. & I came up with this idea about the same time.
I call it "Chain of Custody" and Eric has other names for it.

In general, it depends on religious registration in whois and/or rwhois,
the distributed IRR and PGP.  Here is a brief summary:

   Basically, I have made a proposal to have the Internic set an
   example by registering all delegations in whois/RWhois and 
   signing the delegation.

   All down-stream ISPs should do the same (register delegations
   in RWhois and sign any downstream delegations)

   When a custodian wishes to register a delegation for routing,
   they sign the request.

   That way, registry operators can follow a "chain of custody"
   to give priority when duplicate registration requests are 
   entered into one or more registries.
 
--bill