[db-wg] NWI-3 - AFRINIC IRR Homing

Hi all,

There is enough support for the problem statement as written below, no
objections were raised. As chair i'm declaring consensus on this problem
statement.

This means that the work item can proceed to phase 2, for your
convenience I've copy+pasted it here:

    """
	phase 2: solution definition
		solution finding: people can propose solutions to a work item's
		problem statement. Solutions can come from RIPE NCC staff, or any
		working group member. RIPE NCC may offer an implementation analysis
		on proposed solutions or aspects of solutions.

		For the NWI to move to phase 3, RIPE NCC has to provide the group
		with a summary of their understanding of the solution, and the
		chairs declare consensus on the group's acceptance of this summary.
    """

As presented at past RIPE meetings, RIPE & AfriNIC already spend some
cycles defining possible ways to address this problem statement, I
suggest we recycle that work.

Kind regards,

Job

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:11:38PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Working Group,
> 
> (You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html 
> to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.)
> 
> NWI-3 - Afrinic IRR Homing
> --------
> 
>     In recent years Afrinic set up an IRR instance that enforces
>     authorisation for ROUTE(6) objects at rr.afrinic.net
> 
>     And while the general problem of out-of-region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM
>     objects in the RIPE Database IRR, and the problem where the prefix
>     and the ASN belong to different regions is not trivial to resolve,
>     there seems to be a general consensus that simple cases where
>     ROUTE(6) objects have both an ASN and prefix in Afrinic (~34k
>     objects), should appear in the Afrinic IRR where authorisation can
>     be done and not in the RIPE DB.
> 
>     Complicated cases where the prefix is in Afrinic, but the ASN is
>     another region -or- where the ASN in Afrinic, but the prefix is out
>     of region are out of scope for this NWI.
> --------
> 
> Some of you might wonder why this topic is back on the table. The chairs
> felt that it would be most appropiate to follow our new NWI formal
> process to help progress this work.
> 
> Working group participants, if you agree/disagree with the above problem
> statement please voice your opinion. If you have suggestions to refine
> the text that is welcome too. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
>