[routing-wg] Network failed [was re: Notification of RIPE Database changes]

Thanks for writing this Dennis.

I brought a discussion up at the APNIC35 meeting, and from that into the RIPE66 meeting in Dublin, about the operational issues APNIC faces in region with route: objects requirements for co-signing by inetnum and aut-num holder, with low levels of participation and compliance in the region, compounded by the NIR model.

I realize its not identical to what you've written about, but I do think the problems co-relate: they come down to questions around the authority of creating data in IRR which relates to resources outside a strict control of that IRR, or not adequately maintained inside that IRR.

I am troubled by the aspect of the RIPE IRR which permits 'foreign' objects to be imported into the database, for use as referenced objects. It feels like this creates two classes of data authority: if the resources lie wholly inside RIPE NCC process management, they have strong visible authority to exist. If however, the RPSL object relates to an ARIN asn or an APNIC asn, you are in effect bypassing any access control over that object.

Yet, in my presentation in Dublin, the routing community present there very strongly objected to any weakening of trust in route: object protections and feel the ASN holder is an integral part of the protections of their routing integrity, and risks to router configuration.

I find these two situations contradictory. I'm not sure where to go with this thought, but its troubling.

I must point out that I work in the research section of APNIC and I am not involved in address policy, routing policy, or anything of that nature, and I am obviously outside the RIPE region and so don't have a direct role in the decision made in this community either.

cheers 

	George