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

Hi Randy,

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Randy Bush via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> To: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:26:34 +0900
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
>>>>> Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects
>>>>> for non RIPE resources?
>>>
>>> yes
>>
>> then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address
>> blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which
>> have not.
>
> as you said, it would be good to have an strongly authenticated
> ownership which could assert routing.  try the rpki; works across
> all regions.

You are right, RPKI does fit the bill in a number of ways, and I look
forward to the operators taking advantage of the good bits.

However this does not preclude the RIPE community from improving the
quality of another commonly used source: IRR. As you know there are
only 2 or 3 networks on this planet using RPKI in their operations,
while I can point at many more networks using IRR to build their
whitelists for provisioning.

As you know there is a feature gap between IRR and RPKI. RPKI doesn't
have an "AS-SET"-like replacement, and not all the RPKI TALs are as
easy to obtain as their equivalent IRR data.

> a least it's a more credible argument than thinking encouraging ipv4
> run-out will increase ipv6, as opposed to nat, uptake. < dripping
> sarcasm >

OK, this seems off topic.

Kind regards,

Job