Subject: [DNSOP] AS112 LOA?

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:48:38 -0500

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 it again.

Most if not all transit providers these days install prefix filters to  
make sure that their BGP-speaking customers only send them the routes  
that they should. (Many ASes install similar filters towards peers,  
but the extent to which that is commonplace varies from region to  
region.)

The AS112 project operates under the service prefix 192.175.48.0/24,  
which is originated by AS112. Announcing that prefix to a transit  
provider is an identical situation from the point of view of transit  
provider policies as announcing routes for a new downstream customer;  
in this case the customer is (from whois) "Root Server Technical  
Operations Assn".

Transit providers commonly request a Letter Of Authorisation (LOA)  
from ISPs who want to propagate their customers' routes in this  
fashion. The LOA would come from the customer, and would confirm that  
the ISP is authorised to propagate or announce the routes on their  
behalf.

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 entity that carries the name "Root Server Technical Operations  
Assn", and similarly no listed officers, letterhead, etc which makes  
any LOA likely to be an exercise in photoshoppery and subterfuge.

So, the thought occurred to me (warning, text on-topic for DNSOP  
approaching) that it'd be nice to be able to publish an LOA in the  
form of an RFC so that, in effect, the IETF provides authorisation for  
the prefix in question to be propagated. Such a document could be  
quite brief, but I seem to think its existence would make it far  
easier for providers to accept 192.175.48.0/24 from ISPs.

The benefit would be to ISPs (or other ASes) who decide to start  
providing public AS112 service, and to existing ISPs providing the  
service who change transit providers or peer with people that filter.

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 sufficiently brief in content and purpose  
that I could imagine it being thrown up to the IESG fairly swiftly).

Comments and opinions welcome :-)

Joe

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop