[db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?

A

On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 21:48 denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

> Colleagues
>
> This has been discussed many times with many views expressed. We are sure
> lots of you are bored with commenting on this issue. Unfortunately no
> consensus has yet been found. So we would like to take it back to the basic
> question and see if we can get a conclusive answer. This is not a question
> specifically about the Afrinic homing project. It's a more general question
> about the RIPE Database providing this 'feature'. Even if you have
> commented before, please do so once more so we can get a definitive answer
> to this question. I know there is a tendency to say nothing if someone else
> has made the point you support. But this time we do need numbers. So even
> if what you are thinking has been said, please at least add a +1 so we know
> you also agree with that point.
>
> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for
> non RIPE resources?
>
> We see three most likely answers to this question. Each possible answer
> does have consequences.
>
> A: Yes the RIPE Database should allow creation of ROUTE objects for non
> RIPE resources. If this is the answer then we can look at how to make the
> data more trusting in the short term (and there may be ways to do that).
>
> B: No the RIPE Database should not allow creation of ROUTE objects for any
> non RIPE resource. If this is the answer then maybe we need to look at a
> project to remove all non RIPE resource related ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects
> from the RIPE Database and disable the feature. But that needs to look at
> what to do with ROUTE objects for prefixes from one region and ASNs from a
> different region.
>
> C: Just leave things as they are. Don't promote the service but no
> projects to remove any data from the RIPE Database either. Just drift along
> on the principle "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". This also means
> document this as the answer to this question and no more discussions. Of
> course any problems associated with this feature don't go away.
>
>
> I will briefly review the discussions over the last 2 years:
>
> At the update given at RIPE 72 for the removal of the data starting with
> the Afinic homing project, there was no consensus and a call for more
> comments on the mailing list. A discussion continued on the mailing list
> until October. There was both support and opposition to removing these
> objects from the RIPE Database. One point raised during this discussion
> regarding the Afrinic homing project was, "I believe that what is needed
> here most of all is a clear message from both communities that it is
> desirable to have the ROUTE(6) objects for AFRINIC space in the AFRINIC IRR
> where the registered resource holders can properly authorise objects." No
> one has yet referred to a declared consensus of opinion by the Afrinic
> community to the removal of these objects from the RIPE Database. Also
> during this discussion Afrinic said that they have not yet worked out all
> the fine details of the proposed move of this data. Several issues were
> raised on the technicalities of moving this data and it was said in the
> discussion that no one has yet even done the analysis to see if any of
> these conditions exist (like duplicate, but different data in both
> databases).
>
> At the update given at RIPE 73, there was still no consensus. The RIPE NCC
> and Afrinic were asked to do a check on what could go wrong and who members
> could contact in the event of things going wrong. This doesn't seem to have
> been done. The RIPE NCC suggested they may be able to produce a video or
> webinar about the transfer. This doesn't seem to have been done either. The
> call was again made that both the RIPE and Afrinic communities re-state
> that they both want this project to go forward. That has not happened. It
> was said that Afrinic is the first of many RIRs that may want data
> transferred out of the RIPE Database. Is it the RIRs or the communities
> that want this? The only question raised in the meeting was opposed to the
> transfer. No discussion followed on the mailing list.
>
> At RIPE 74 there was no update on this issue.
>
> The next discussion wasn't until July 2017. In this discussion there was
> mention of developing a global IRR database with a couple of supporters. We
> all know such ideas often take years to be agreed on, designed and
> implemented as a practical solution. We want to answer this question in
> relation to the situation today. There were some pointers made back to
> previous mailing list discussions, but nothing else new was said.
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB WG
>
-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20171009/0acab221/attachment.html>