This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/routing-wg@ripe.net/
[routing-wg] Publish in Parent - input requested
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Publish in Parent - input requested
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Publish in Parent - input requested
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lukas Tribus
lukas at ltri.eu
Fri Sep 30 10:29:15 CEST 2022
On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 09:59, Tim Bruijnzeels <tim at nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > I disagree that having out-of-region objects in the RIPE NCC RPKI repository > creates a mess. The comparison with IRR is wrong for a number of reasons. I completely agree, the comparison with IRR is wrong and makes no sense at all. We are talking about RPKI, not IRR2. The objections raised are relevant if we would spin up a new IRR database, but that is not what we are doing here. If we overly restrict RIPE services, then new external services need to cover for this, just like RADB and friends are covering for the lack of ARIN features today (or in the past) in the IRR world. A lot of people spinning up their own http/rsync infrastructure is a nightmare. Just think of all the connections and reliability issues of CAs in validator outputs we have today. And I don't think the number of organizations operating across multiple RIR regions (or more specifically: working with resources from multiple RIR regions) is that low. Lukas
- Previous message (by thread): [routing-wg] Publish in Parent - input requested
- Next message (by thread): [routing-wg] Publish in Parent - input requested
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]