Regardless of what the legacy space users think, if the RIRs decided to sign certificates for use in BGP route for a small fee to recover costs, and if those legacy space holders wish to make use of this new service (like a new version of Windows) then they have to sign up and pay the fees. The fact that they once received a free service does not entitle them to receive *ALL* services for free *FOREVER*.
(NOTE: I am speaking for others here, readers should be aware.) The/One difficulty is that signing up for this new service, for at least one registry, requires that you sign up for the same membership relationship as the non-legacy-holders. That means you submit to the registry authority over the address you were allocated for "free", and obligates you to paying the fee thereafter. And therefore risking having the address reclaimed if membership rules are not met. The question is whether the cert signing service is valuable enough to warrant the change in risk. If the cert signing service is put into use widely enough, then I hope people would see that as a value and buy in. (NOTE: I am not a registrar and any opinions here about registry behavior are hearsay and conclusions of the witness.) --Sandy
The/One difficulty is that signing up for this new service, for at least one registry, requires that you sign up for the same membership relationship as the non-legacy-holders. That means you submit to the registry authority over the address you were allocated for "free", and obligates you to paying the fee thereafter.
The fees are not charged for past services that were received for free, only for future services. I see nothing wrong here. The RIR is offering these organizations the same services at the same terms as everyone else. This closely corresponds to the term "fair" in an economic market context.
And therefore risking having the address reclaimed if membership rules are not met.
If membership rules were hard to meet, then the existing RIR members would be changing those rules. The RIRs are membership organizations that respond to the desires of their membership. I don't know of any reason why a reasonable network operator would risk having their address reclaimed. Essentially, the RIRs give addresses to those who need them and use them. If a member needs and uses an address range, then the RIRs are not going to reclaim it.
The question is whether the cert signing service is valuable enough to warrant the change in risk. If the cert signing service is put into use widely enough, then I hope people would see that as a value and buy in.
I hope so to. I think that the RIRs are in an ideal position to offer certificate services and that as membership organizations they are also a form of "web of trust" except that the trust is not entirely transmitted in the form of encrypted codes. I also think that the IN-ADDR.ARPA and IP6.ARPA services operated by the RIRs are valuable and worthwhile to us all. And I would like to see the RIRs offer services like Cymru and routing registries on a more coordinated and *OFFICIAL* basis. In fact, a recent query on the list pointed to an opportunity to offer a registry of "intended use ASNs" where the holder of an IP address range could indicate the ASNs in which they intend to have their address range announced. --Michael Dillon
participants (2)
-
Michael.Dillonļ¼ btradianz.com -
Sandy Murphy