[routing-wg] FW: FW: FW: discussion about rogue database objects

Den 13/11/14 10:09, skrev poty at iiat.ru:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I've already explained why this had been happened at all first hand.
> RIRs have different rules and principles and constantly invents new
> methods of complicating the situation in exchanging information between
> them.
> Second thought: the "concern" was raised in presumption that the route
> objects "authorize" something to a provider. It is NOT. The absence of
> the routing objects would change nothing in the situation. A lot of
> providers do not build any filters based on a RIR routing policy at all.

Yes. This was also the case with the providers of the rogue AS that 
started this discussion.
There were even prefixes in the RIR db with a different origin AS than 
the one being announced on the internet. The data in the RIR db seem to 
have no influence on the routes being announced.

You could however argue that a more correct RIR db would make LIRs use 
this db for actual filtering.