[db-wg] RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting Non-authorative IRR Objects

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:32:44AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48:
> > When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake.
> 
> > When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it
> > is an operator error. When one misconfigures things... they are
> > misconfigured, no big deal.
> 
> operator error happens all the time.  In most cases, it's reversible
> and life goes on.

Operators are free to create route/route6 objects in the appropriate
validating IRR database.

> As it stands, the proposal allows some types of operator error to
> cause irreversible changes to their exterior routing policy, with no
> notification or grace period.  It may be that those changes are for
> the better, but there will also be cases where it's for the worse.
> The RIPE-NONAUTH data set contains garbage, but it also contains
> plenty of accurate objects.

Using RPKI data to purge RIPE-NONAUTH cleans up garbage. Are you
suggesting that the RIPE-NONAUTH objects are more accurate than the RPKI
ROAs (which semantically have a higher precedence)?

We have *NO* idea who created the objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database,
we have no idea whether this was done with the consent of the resource
owner. We *DO* know that any RPKI ROAs created through the 5 RIRs are
created with the fully consent of the owner, why shouldn't that take
precedent?

> If this proposal does not provide a mechanism to notify holders of
> conflicting route/route6 objects and provide a reasonable grace period
> for sorting conflicts, then the proposal is harmful and should not
> proceed.

I disagree - the current situation is harmful. Leaving things as-is is
damaging.

Kind regards,

Job