On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:39 AM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> > the problem isn't keeping the database, it's figuring out who can make > authoritative statements about each block of IP addresses. That is an inherently hierarchical question since all IP blocks originally > trace back to allocations from IANA. > Well; It's a hierarchical question only because the current registration scheme is defined in a hierarchical manner. If BGP were being designed today, we could choose 256-Bit AS numbers, and allow each mined or staked block to yield a block of AS numbers prepended by some random previously-unused 128-bit GUID. However, a blockchain could also be used to allow an authority to make a statement representing a resource that can be made a non-withdrawable statement --- in other words, the authority's role or job in the registration process is to originate the registration, and after that is done: their authoritative statement is accepted ONCE per resource. The registration is permanent --- the authority has no ongoing role and no ability to later make a new conflicting statement about that same resource, and the authority has no operational role except to originate new registrations. This would mean that a foreign government could not coerce the authority to "cancel" or mangle a registration to meet a political or adversarial objective of disrupting the ability to co-ordinate networks, since the number registry is an authority of limited power: not an authority of complete power. We can have arguments about the best way to document the chain of > ownership, and conspiracy theories about how the evil RIRs are planning to > steal our precious bodily flu^W^WIPs, but "put it in a blockchain!" > Puhleeze. > R's, > John > -- -JH
