(A comment about the presentation that I’m asking here because I wasn’t quick enough in typing in the chat window - I was participating remotely.) There was a question at the mike at the very end of the presentation about blockchain, about the purpose for the work. The answer was that the purpose was to protect origin authorization. That got me thinking about the blockchain model vs the RIPE model. In times past, I’ve seen RIPE reminders to their members that they are responsible for their entire allocation, even if some of it is sub-allocated. And I’ve seen training that carefully instructs the members how to use mnt-by, mat-lower, mat-routes, etc., to retain control over the sub-allocation portions of their address space, but give some control to the recipient. And warnings that lack of care may result in losing authority, which would require correction by the database staff. I did find a FAQ for Sub-allocation that says some of this, so hopefully I am not totally off-base. Is that still the RIPE model, that authority over the sub-allocation is more shared than relinquished? If I understand blockchain properly, it presumes a model where control is given up entirely when an object is transferred. No two entities can have authority over an object. Nothing says I’m right about that, either, of course. —Sandy