Re: So -- what did happen to Panix?

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

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.

IOW: It didn't solve this problem.  So I guess we're discussing the  
other 5%?

--
TTFN,
patrick