[anti-abuse-wg] [routing-wg] [db-wg] Solving the issue of rogue ROUTE objects in the RIPE Database

Hi Randy,

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 08:34:46AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> The following RIR IRR's are in use today: RIPE, APNIC, AfriNIC, ARIN.
> >> most operators in X do not register routes in irrX for all X except RIPE
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.
> 
> most folk in non-ripe regions do not use their rir's irr instance.

I guess we look different at the data, APNIC's IRR seems rather populair
to me, AfriNIC has good quality data. The total of 177.975 (non-RIPE:
38.712) exact matches between registered in IRR & observed in BGP is a
significant amount to me, this is not even counting more specifics.

Given the high irr/bgp ratio of RIPE and APNIC (taking into account the
sizes), and the IRR Homing project under way for AfriNIC (30k pfx) and
remaining APNIC covered route-objects in RIPE IRR, I conclude the
approach for RIR authenticated IRR data is successful.

My question from earlier in the thread still stands: should RIPE IRR
attempt to be a global IRR and do its best to authenticate data itself
(as per Denis' proposal), or should RIPE IRR continue to work to
transfer objects to the appropiate RIR's IRR and let their respective
communities work with those RIRs to authenticate the data (if needed)?

> > I know my employer uses the rr.ntt.net instance on a daily basis.
> 
> yes, i built that and heas has done cool stuff.  does your employer
> register in ARIN or APNIC irr?  < light goes on? >

We encourage anyone to register their routes in the appropiate IRR,
especially when that IRR offers strong guarantees about the authenticity
of the route-object.

I'll take your ad-hominem-employer argument about the data-production
side as an action item to assess if improvement is warranted. :-)

However, the discussion at hand seems to me to be about the data
consumption side, I feel that you raised the implicit question "Are
RIR's IRR relevant?" to which my answer is YES.

Kind regards,

Job