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

Hi Colleagues

Rob is correct, option 1 has been proposed before and it was opposed.
Whilst neither supporting nor opposing anyone's views let me ask a
couple of questions. I think these questions need addressing even if
it is just to quote some historic facts and dismiss them. It's always
good to document that all angles have been considered in a decision.

For those with long memories, why was authorisation required from the
origin ASN and is that reason still valid? (I think it was this point
that blocked the last attempt to take this option.)

It has been said several times in this thread that dropping the origin
auth requirement will bring the RIPE Database IRR into line with other
IRRs and RPKI. But are we losing something from authorisation by doing
this and are we dropping to the lowest common denominator?

cheers
denis

co-chair DB WG


On 17 October 2017 at 17:05, Rob Evans <rhe at nosc.ja.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 1) Remove the "origin:" authorization requirement. RIPE is currently the
>> only RIR that requires this, the current implementation creates data
>> concurrency issues across Internet databases by requiring the creation of
>> duplicate autnums.
>>
>> 2) Flag "route:" objects for non-RIPE-managed space with "source:
>> RIPE-NONAUTH" to identify non-authoritative data.
>
>
> I support both of those.  I’ll observe that there have been attempts to do
> (1) in the past that have floundered.
>
>> 3) Consider possible, simple options to allow non RIPE resource
>> holders to 'approve' (if not authorise) the creation of a foreign
>> ROUTE object.
>
>
> I wouldn’t want to lose the ability to make progress on (1) and (2) because
> we end up getting bogged down in the details of (3), which is what I fear
> will happen, so I’d put something like this on the back burner for now.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob