[DBWG] RIPE proposed changes to the routing registry

[Madhvi Gokool]

Thanks Job for this insight.

Regards

Madhvi


On 08/06/2018 4:16 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> 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

-- 
Madhvi Gokool
Registration Services Manager, AFRINIC Ltd.
t:  +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | 
w: www.afrinic.net