<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="en-NL" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi Barry,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It was a pleasure to have you at the workshop and would love to see you again in the next one. I can assure you that with your presence at the workshop we didn’t assume agreement on this plan, we were just seeking for fruitful feedback and different opinions from our participants. 😊<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As I already mentioned to a previous message, some of us already use a restricted pool of IRR DBs to create prefix lists. Indeed, it lacks massive adoption, but is not far away from reality and there is a good list of early adopters that expressed interest and would love to work on that direction. Do you mean you would like to see a number like 10-20 EU IXPs adopting this practice before it becomes a RIPE doc? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And although the two proposals you mentioned sound paradoxical, if you re-think about it they are not. This current BCOP targets to enhance routing security while the second one combines it with common Traffic Engineering rules and other best practices. For the good friends in Akamai, perhaps both proposals will have little to zero impact. For the good friends in Google, both proposals are out of interest as they are de-peering with the Route Servers. For the good friends in META, Microsoft etc we need to examine it more thoroughly but the paradox is that Microsoft is already creating a pool of trustworthy Route Server deployments across IXPs via the MAPS program (not sure if they came to INEX though).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Finally, I am super aligned with your last paragraph: regardless of the outcome of this proposal, it is a good crash-test to check the status-quo of this community regarding this hot topic. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Kind Regards<o:p></o:p> Stavros<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: connect-wg <connect-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Barry O'Donovan (Open Solutions) <barry@opensolutions.ie> Date: Thursday, 6 June 2024 at 23:21 To: Connect-WG <connect-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [connect-wg] BCOP for the use of IRR DBs in IXP RS - Last call<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 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 _______________________________________________ connect-wg mailing list connect-wg@ripe.net <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fconnect-wg&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C832fb580d06c42c8b2bd08dc866e9a80%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638533056808449838%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hQC1YPT7FHBIcU4NaK2NBQC2Ewk%2FlzOBtcmIF4SeMGk%3D&reserved=0</a> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.ripe.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fconnect-wg&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C832fb580d06c42c8b2bd08dc866e9a80%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638533056808462755%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Ky6ZZSuw%2B5r%2BZ0dhyAQk9atCF9vQJHRX7%2FzywWg5u2A%3D&reserved=0</a><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>