On Nov 26, 2007, at 4:10 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joe Abley:
The trouble with the AS112 project is that there's no actual
connected
customer, and explaining that AS112 is special to transit providers
who haven't already heard of the concept can be a draining and
frequently unfulfilling e
I can't help thinking that resource certification might help here - but
thats a "tomorrow" response rather than a "today" solution
(see page 23 of
http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-12-certs.pdf) for this
concept of a digitally signed LOA)
Geoff
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joe A
* Joe Abley:
> The trouble with the AS112 project is that there's no actual connected
> customer, and explaining that AS112 is special to transit providers
> who haven't already heard of the concept can be a draining and
> frequently unfulfilling exercise. I seem to think there's no actual
> legal
On 26-Nov-2007, at 15:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
humph I think this is a surefire way to poison this prefix
forever. if the "IETF" is the body holding the delegation, then
they would be able to sign the ROA... otherwise, the body holding
the prefix (paying
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:26:00PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >
> >I don't have strong feelings about whether the "LOA in an RFC" idea
> >is plausible, or even good, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.
> >If there was consensus that
On Nov 26, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
I don't have strong feelings about whether the "LOA in an RFC" idea
is plausible, or even good, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.
If there was consensus that such a document was worthwhile, I'd
happy to do the legwork (and it'd be suffi
Hi all,
Afilias runs AS112 servers at its various anycast nodes, as well as
authoritative servers for the various TLDs that Afilias hosts. We just
turned up a new node last week, which brought the following issue back
to prominence; I thought I'd send a note about it before I forgot
about
