[db-wg] [routing-wg] Last Call - creation of new out of region ROUTE(6) objects

In message <698723772.1802950.1515672632190 at mail.yahoo.com>, 
denis walker <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>I understand your viewpoint, but I think it is a bit harsh to criticise the
> judgement of the early developers of the routing system. As Sandra explain
>ed in this posthttps://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2017-October/0
>05707.html
>the early model was based on ASs. Then as the reliance moved more towards I
>Ps the systems and procedures were modified to encompass the changing model
>. And also not all RIRs operated an IRR for many years so the ROUTE objects
> had to go somewhere. And Internet abuse may not have been much of a concer
>n during the development of the early routing system and later modifications.
>
>It is generally accepted now that there are serious concerns with the curre
>nt model and we are all working towards resolving these issues.


To the extent that my comments may have appeared harsh, I do apologize.
However I am not sure whether you and I are even talking about the same thing,
as opposed to talking past one another.  So let me endeavor to be clear.

I don't pretend to understand very much about the routing system, or about
RIPE's IRR, or the numerous foibles and complexities associated therewith.
However I'm not sure that it takes a PhD in routing to grasp the fundamental
problem here.

As it has been explained to me, literally anybody can create a login account
with/for RIPE and can then set about to create and enter whatever routes
he or she desires and all of those will thenceforth be present in the RIPE
data base... a now unreliable data base that, sadly, zillions of parties
around the world are currently using to make decisions about route filtering.

I feel sure that it can be argued... and that it most probably has been
argued, probably at length... who exactly should be empowered to create
specific route objects in the data base.  Should it be the AS registrant,
the registrant of the affected IP range, some combination or permutation
thereof?  But from my perspective all such discusssions amount to arguing
over the proper placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Quite simply, there are five RIRs.  Each of those has a set of dues paying
members.  Each of those could be, and I would argue, should be given some
sort of a magic cookie... a cookie of a kind that non-dues-payers would
never have.  Only a party in possession of such a cookie should be permitted
to enter route objects into the RIPE data base.

This would at least keep the random drive-by criminals out, which would be
a dramatic improvement over the current status quo, as I understand it.


Regards,
rfg