On Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 05:13:18PM +0000, Stavros Konstantaras wrote: > * The IRRdv4 workaround is not a good one. Initially, not everyone > can afford having an IRRDv4 instance in its infrastructure to use > its features or can fit with the operational model .
I do not follow the above argumentation. Every run of bgpq3/bgpq4/peval get their data from IRRD v4 instances. The software already has been written, now we just need to start making use of it! :) > In AMS-IX infrastructure we do use IRRdv4 to mirror other IRR DBs and > I have bumped into the "route object preference" feature. But we > incorporated it into our operations last year. Moreover, as Sasha > mentions in the document: “IRRd will act as if the object was deleted, > but it may become visible again later.” due to creations/deletions. OK. How does it make this 'workaround' 'not a good one'? Outright deleting databases seems to be a workaround to me. > I consider the following approach a more feasible one for most of the > users: “bgpq4 -4 -A -b -h my-whois.domain.net -S > RIPE,LACNIC,APNIC,ARIN,AFRINIC,RADB AS-FOOBAR” I think your perspective is clear, but multiple people have pointed out concerns that the other databases also contain useful information; thus logically, by using a priority preference model you get the best of both worlds? > But RADB will always prioritize their objects with SOURCE RADB over > the official ones (which makes sense as they make money) Do you know that for sure? Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ connect-wg mailing list connect-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg
