[DBWG] RIPE proposed changes to the routing registry

[Job Snijders]

Dear Madhvi,

On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 04:07:17PM +0400, Madhvi Gokool wrote:
> > On 08/06/2018 3:35 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> > It would be my understanding that the AFRINIC IRR still is only
> > available to AfriNIC members if foreign ASNs are allowed in "route:"
> > objects (just like with RPKI ROAs). After all, in my example it is not
> > NTT who can create or remove the route-object, but only the AfriNIC
> > member can create/remove/modify the route-object.
> 
> You have a valid point.
> 
> But, how can we ascertain (or rather do we want to ascertain) that
> there is consent from the ASN holder that the ASN can be used in the
> route(6) object?

No consent is required from the ASN holder.

As an example: The RIPE NCC IRR is moving to a model where only the
prefix-owner needs to authorize route-object creation. This change was
introduced because it was recognised that it brought significant delays
to the provisioning process, and added no value, and in the case of
RIPE's model it introduced pollution of the database. 

In other IRRs such as ARIN, NTTCOM, RADB this never was a requirement.
Also, with RPKI ROAs, no such consent is required from the ASN holder.

Kind regards,

Job