[db-wg] Temporary origins

> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <dbwg at c4inet.net> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 11:42:12AM +0200, Alex Band wrote:
>> Thanks for sharing your experiences George.
>> 
>> I'm curious to hear from our Community about what they think
>> about this mode of operation; simply create the route object on
>> the inetnum holder's authorisation alone, inform the ASN holder
>> that it was created and only remove the object if they object.
>> 
>> It would simplify the authorisation model tremendously and save
>> a lot of frustration and customer support tickets.
>> 
>> Seeing that APNIC has positive experiences, would our Community
>> support such an approach considering the up and downsides?
> 
> Works for me. It's within the authority of the prefix holder to
> decide whom to allow to advertise the prefix. If the ASN holder
> doesn't want to advertise it, don't.
> 
> Out of interest, do you propose to automate the removal of
> disputed route: objects? How would that be authorised if
> maintained solely by the inetnum: maintainer?

The same authorisation that is currently required to do pre-approval of the ASN side of route object creation, could be used to allow 'post-deletion'. I.e. even though there would be no mnt-by for the ASN holder, they would be able to delete the object provided they have access to the relevant aut-num maintainer (mnt-by, mnt-routes).

This way the ASN holder could use existing APIs and web-updates to delete the object in response to the notification of the route object creation (we can easily include a link to web updates). ASNs that want to be more restrictive could even automate querying the database for route objects with their ASN in the "origin:" and delete unwanted objects they find.

Regards,

Tim Bruijnzeels





> 
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>