On Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Job Snijders wrote:
Are others jumping ship or planning to from ALTDB (no offense intended, and
grateful for the service you've provided) and other non-auth IRRs like RADB
due to networks like Tata announcing that they won't honor route objects
created in non-authoratative IRR DBs after late last year and plan to ignore
them entirely by late next year? i.e.
From: https://lg.as6453.net/doc/cust-routing-policy.html
Special note, deprecation of non-authoritative registries
Please note that 'route' and 'route6' objects created after 2021-Aug-15
in non-authoritative registries like RADB, NTTCOM, ALTDB and others
will not work. Objects created before that date will continue to work till
2023-Aug-15. It is recommended to create RPKI ROA objects instead. In
rare cases if that's not possible, 'route' and 'route6' must be created
in the authoritative registry - AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, RIPE,
NIC.br or IDNIC.
I very much appreciate Tata's efforts to strive to only use authoritive
data when making BGP routing decisions; however the scope of their
charter is of course confined to just Tata's own operations. Tata's
routing policies affect only Tata's customer cone.
I'm (well, work is) a Tata customer. So their policy wrt which IRR's
they'll honor objects in matters to me, and going forward, it makes no
sense for us to create new objects in ALTDB or RADB...and those proxy
registrations Kenneth created in ALTDB, if any of those networks are
originated by Tata customers, I presume the new ALTDB objects won't cause
Tata prefix-list filters to include those routes.
I just wonder if Tata is alone leading the charge to deprecate non-auth
IRRs, or if there are other notable networks with similar policies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
StackPath, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________