Blockchain and Networking

[mysidia at gmail.com (Jimmy Hess)]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:39 AM, John R. Levine <johnl at 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