I think from my perspective as a staffer in another RIR, with users who are concerned about abuse of their resources in the RIPE IRR, this is a good proposal. Anyone who is able to create a signed assertion of intent has a strong-proof of intent, which should stand, if older data contradicts it. If this proposal means that the IRR will honour the signed intent, It feels like a good outcome.
I am also aware of a number of BGP speakers in the APNIC region who appear to have long-held, stable state in the RIPE IRR data who may be adversely affected by removal so I am keen that the contact from RIPE happens, but its understood older objects may have stale contact info: This simply may not get all cases. Since the specifics here are that a ROA leads to removal, it requires the prime resource holder (inetnums) to consent. That feels respectful of their intent. If they have "forgotten" as a company they depend on IRR data, they are also actively engaged in routing (made the ROA) inside the correct RIR's systems, so the solution appears tractable. https://blog.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Count-of-route-route6-object.png This shows the histogram of objects by age, which refer to APNIC region resources. Approximately 2,900 distinct APNIC region prefixes are represented in route: and route6: objects in the RIPE NCC database. These prefixes distribute over 385 distinct address holders, indirect (NIR sub-account) address holders, a mix of Members, and historical Non-Member resource holders. (from https://blog.apnic.net/2018/08/30/ripe-ncc-moves-to-close-off-a-routing-registry-loophole/) I don't think RIR staff should participate in the consensus call on these things, so I offer this as "information around the subject" -George On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:16 PM Marco Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR Database Non-Authoritative > Route Object Clean-up", is now available for discussion. > > The goal of the proposal is to delete an non-authoritative object stored in > the RIPE IRR, if it conflicts with an RPKI ROA. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06 > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to > the proposers. > > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the > Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal. > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <[email protected]> before 9 November 2018. > > Kind regards, > > Marco Schmidt > Policy Officer > RIPE NCC > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum >
