This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
- Previous message (by thread): [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
- Next message (by thread): [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Barry O'Donovan (Open Solutions)
barry at opensolutions.ie
Thu Jun 6 23:20:48 CEST 2024
Hi all, Marco d'Itri wrote on 06/06/2024 04:52: >> correct one or the information in the third-party databases is more >> aligned with the resource holder's intentions. In other words, yes, >> conflicting information exists, but it doesn't automatically follow that >> the 'wrong' information is in the non-RIR databases. > This is correct, but in the end it does not matter in our view: the plan > agreed by the IXP operators also contemplates educating their members to > move (or at least replicate) the correct data to the authoritative IRRs. I think you're referring to the Euro-IX Route Server Workshop held recently in Rome? If so, let me start by saying it was a great workshop and very useful for route server operators - kudos to all who organised including Stavros. Regrettably, it was also the first of these workshops I was able to attend, and so I was unfamiliar with the rules of consensus, what was required to agree on a plan, and what had transpired at previous workshops. This BCOP plan felt like it came with plenty of prior work that I missed, so I was hesitant to be overly vocal as a newbie. I'm not sure to what extent it can be asserted that the plan was agreed by IXP operators (and I appreciate it's not clear what is meant by that above) but I'd like to state that my being present at the workshop does not convey agreement with this plan. One comment I did make was that it was paradoxical, on one hand, to bemoan the depeering of large network(s) from route servers and discuss how IXPs could engage to bring them back while, on the other hand, trying to implement a practice which would dictate how and where they should register their routing objects. Others have already noted that a BCOP should reflect established /current/ operating practices, and I think this proposal fails that test. I’d emphasise that, like everyone else here, I am passionately pro-improved routing security, and there are important roles for IXP operators here. Including proposals like this which, regardless of whether they succeed or fail, help remind us all of the potential problems with the status quo. - Barry
- Previous message (by thread): [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
- Next message (by thread): [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]