Removing Barriers to RPKI Adoption#

Cecilia Testart — Georgia Institute of Technology

• Why: ROA coverage passed 50% but adoption is uneven, and this is a rigorous answer to why: it identifies planning complexity — not awareness — as the choke point, with numbers on where the remaining headroom is.
• What: Combines 13 semi-structured operator interviews with BGP/WHOIS/delegation/RIR data analysis, framed by a technology-adoption model (RPKI is in the late-majority phase). Four barrier areas: IP resource management (years of poor recordkeeping), awareness/training, RPKI software, and monitoring/incident tooling. The core contribution is a systematic ROA-planning framework — who can issue, which more-specifics are routed, which delegations/other orgs are involved — made concrete via ru-RPKI-ready, a platform characterizing unrouted space: 47% of IPv4 and 71% of IPv6 prefixes not in RPKI could be covered with minimal technical effort, and if just ten organizations acted, global coverage would rise 7% (IPv4) and 19% (IPv6).
• How: Worked examples show a single /20 requiring 7 ROAs across 7 origin ASNs and two organizations — the realistic complexity that scares operators off. RIRs are identified as pivotal actors across all four barrier areas.
• Where applicable: Most actionable for small/mid-size operators and RIR outreach programs; the planning framework and tool are directly usable for anyone with messy, inherited address space.