[connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call

Hi Tomas,

There is nothing to correct on that, that is exactly what we are planning to do. I was in talks with the DECIX colleagues to create a strategy on how to approach our members/customers together, educate them and measure progress in a monthly basis. Obviously the 12-month soft-deadline is subject on the performance of our actions.

Indeed, when our customers realized how easy is for them to use the RIPE, ARIN or APNIC WEB portal to create ROAS, we saw prefixes being transition from unknown to valid. I think the above plan and its benefits is heavily overlooked from our community ☹

Kind Regards
Stavros

From: connect-wg <connect-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Tomas Lynch <tomas.lynch at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, 10 June 2024 at 00:21
To: Connect-WG <connect-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call
Please correct me if I'm wrong about my logic and naive about my proposal here:

If this BCOP is implemented by an IXP, then the IXP would have to tell all their peers to create route(6) objects in their RIR if they do not have it. At the same time, those peers would have to tell their customers to create objects in their RIR and so on. The time of that process in the BCP first draft is calculated as a grace period of 12 months (of course it can be reviewed).

So, there is an effort on the IXPs and on the peers to educate customers that can be used to educate them in signing ROAs. These users would have to login in their RIRs anyway. If I were a lazy AS administrator, I would rather create an ROA with 3 or 4 clicks than learn RPSL.




On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 1:20 PM Stavros Konstantaras <stavros.konstantaras at ams-ix.net<mailto:stavros.konstantaras at ams-ix.net>> wrote:
Difficult but not impossible, right?

Maybe a reasonable counter-proposal would be to delay the removal of RADB for an extra year until a common API is adopted or a proxy tool is developed ?

Technical solutions exist, is a matter of willingness and I would love to see initiatives into that direction rather seeing ourselves rely on convenient solutions.


Kind Regards
Stavros

From: connect-wg <connect-wg-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:connect-wg-bounces at ripe.net>> on behalf of Arturo Servin via connect-wg <connect-wg at ripe.net<mailto:connect-wg at ripe.net>>
Date: Friday, 7 June 2024 at 09:51
To: Barry O'Donovan (Open Solutions) <barry at opensolutions.ie<mailto:barry at opensolutions.ie>>
Cc: Connect-WG <connect-wg at ripe.net<mailto:connect-wg at ripe.net>>
Subject: Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call


On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 11:21 PM Barry O'Donovan (Open Solutions) <barry at opensolutions.ie<mailto:barry at opensolutions.ie>> wrote:
Hi all,



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.

And this will definitely won't help to bring them back (and probably nothing will but we can try ... )

As I mentioned in my previous email, as stated in the MARNS for CDN/Cloud providers their approach for the same problem is different and possibly incompatible.

In a perfect world where all RIR support and have the same APIs to manage IRR objects, this could have an opportunity, but in the current state of affairs for IRR management in RIRs, I think it is difficult.

Regards
as



_______________________________________________
connect-wg mailing list
connect-wg at ripe.net<mailto:connect-wg at ripe.net>
https://mailman.ripe.net/

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/connect-wg/attachments/20240610/913945f9/attachment-0001.html>