nanog mailing list archives
Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption
From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:34:56 +0000
On 13 Apr 2022, at 1:33 AM, Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> wrote: On 4/12/22 9:56 PM, John Curran wrote:Doug, we’re not contracting with these parties to provide any other services…i.e. there’s nothing to "add a rider to”. (Those who have any registration services agreement with ARIN already have access to all services incl. RPKI)Thank you for considering my suggestion. Perhaps I misunderstand the current state. I'm thinking of a scenario where a person holds legacy space, with no [L]RSA, but they do have a registered ASN through ARIN (for example). In that scenario are they eligible for RPKI for their legacy space?
Doug - My apologies - I didn't quite understand the scenario that you were considering… Yes, there are organizations that already have registration services agreements with ARIN for either ASNs or IPv6, and now that we have uniform fee schedule it is trivial to bring their legacy IPv4 number resources under such an existing agreement with a simple addendum – and then the legacy number resources receive full registry services including RPKI. Of course this probably doesn’t address the concerns of some legacy resource holders, expressed generally as “there’s no way my legal department will ever let us sign the ARIN RSA….” In fact, that’s often not the case with such customers: they already have signed the ARIN RSA when they obtained their ASN or IPv6 number resources, so that’s really not the issue, rather it is belief that there is some elusive property enshrined in their legacy IPv4 number resources that can't be described but will dissipate if brought under a registration services agreement. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers P.S. While legacy resource holders do benefit from a basic services without any fee or contract, and if brought under agreement get a rather favorable total annual cap on their registry maintenance fees [currently $150/yr, increasing $25 / year] – those are simply benefits that are provided for the folks that were involved in the early days of the Internet and held number resources at ARIN’s formation in 1997 (rather than some strange intrinsic property of certain IP address blocks…)
Current thread:
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT), (continued)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) William Herrin (Apr 06)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) John Curran (Apr 06)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Apr 06)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) John Curran (Apr 07)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Apr 07)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) John Curran (Apr 07)
- A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption Doug Barton (Apr 12)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption John Curran (Apr 12)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption Doug Barton (Apr 12)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption William Herrin (Apr 13)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption Alex Band (Apr 13)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption John Curran (Apr 13)
- Re: A way that ARIN can help encourage RPKI adoption Alex Band (Apr 13)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Apr 06)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) John Curran (Apr 07)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) Owen DeLong via NANOG (Apr 07)
- Re: ARIN fee structure (was: re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT) John Curran (Apr 07)
- Re: [nanog] Re: 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 Jon Lewis (Apr 04)
- Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Approximately 40 John Curran (Apr 04)
- Re: [nanog] Re: [nanog] 2749 routes AT RISK - Re: TIMELY/IMPORTANT - Dan Mahoney (Gushi) (Apr 04)