[db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs

Hi Ronald,

> On 12 May 2021, at 21:59, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> ...
> I'd like to ask a more general question anyway, which is just this:
> When the authority for some IP number resource is transferred from,
> say, RIPE, to some other RIR, is there any good reason why any
> associated route objects should not likewise travel to the new RIR
> along with the IP block allocation itself?  

During an inter-RIR transfer in the RIPE region, any associated routes are updated according to the user's wishes, in coordination with the RIPE NCC, to minimise any potential for disrupting networks.

> And if there is no such
> good reason, then could we please have a rule that says that a
> transfer of an IP address block out of the RIPE region will be
> followed also by a deletion, in short order, from the RIPE data base
> of any directly relevant route object(s)?
> 

Deleting the route objects are done manually, we are investigating how to automate this (or at least email reminders so they are not left behind).

In April I found 2 routes in the RIPE database with an out-of-region prefix, and 33 routes in the RIPE-NONAUTH database with an in-region prefix. These were left over from Inter-RIR transfers since 2018. I notified the maintainers and moved the routes to the correct database.

> More broadly, it is parhaps a result of my overly-fastidious nature,
> but I personally would be in favor of simply deleting all of the
> remaining RIPE-NONAUTH route objects from the RIPE data base.  

The NONAUTH routes date back to the time when the RIPE database served as a global IRR, and at the time it was decided to move them to a separate database rather than delete them altogether and risk disruption for users that depend on them.

There is some more detail in the impact analysis for the original change:  https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-implementation <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-implementation>

And extensive discussion in the DB-WG archives from 2017 - 2018: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/ <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/>


> ...
> It seems that we are now in the era of RPKI and that everyone is being
> generally encouraged to take routing security rather more seriously
> these days, which is a profoundly Good Thing.  Yet it appears that
> when it comes to these RIPE-NONAUTH route records, RIPE is still, in
> effect catering not just to the last generation of route registration
> protocols, but also and even to the generation before that.  At what
> point in time does will all of this stuff be seen to be what it is,
> i.e. antiquated and counterproductive?
> 


The intent of the 2018-06 policy proposal (now RIPE-731) was to clean up route(6) objects in RIPE-NONAUTH where they conflict with an RPKI ROA:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06>


Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20210513/93f5cf41/attachment.html>