On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:59:22PM +0900, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: > >> This can be a separate effort. However, what I did not mention > >> earlier is that we probably should disallow the creation of new > >> out-of-region AUT-NUM objects if they are no longer required to > >> authorise ROUTE(6) objects. > > how long do you think it will be before there are no inter-region > barriers to AS transfers? add a year or so to that to give people > time to clean up the mess caused by this policy hole.
It is not entirely clear to me what the issue of inter-RIR ASN transfers has to do with the topic at hand. However, there is a lively discussion on ARIN PPML about Inter-RIR ASN transfers, you too can participate: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2018-February/thread.html > > Yes, I support disallowing the creation of NEW out-of-region AUT-NUM > > and ROUTE objects. > > not exact;ly what tim was suggesting, see above. > > > I keep seeing route objects covering non-RIPE IP space popping up in > > the RIPE IRR for nefarious purposes. > > that may be the wrong question. are some appearing for legitimate and > useful purposes? if so, how will those needs be addressed going > forward? I'm happy to discuss "legitimate use cases", provided they exist, and aren't the result of an incorrect use of the RIPE IRR. Can you share some? To me it is quite significant that I'm not aware of operational issues related to the policies of the APNIC IRR, and RIPE is moving towards that same model. Kind regards, Job
