[DBWG] RIPE proposed changes to the routing registry

[Job Snijders]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 09:58:18AM +0400, Daniel Shaw wrote:
> On 17/05/2018, 00:10, Job Snijders	typed:
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 20:44, Daniel Shaw <daniel at afrinic.net> wrote:
> > > There is a concern about route(6) objects where the resources are
> > > allocated by AFRINIC, but need to originate from a non-AFRINIC
> > > ASN. - It is not impossible to create these objects, but it does
> > > involve manual intervention by AFRINIC staff for the time being,
> > > and not automated.
> > 
> > Can you make this process easier for AfriNIC members? This will
> > improve the experience for everyone and address a number of concerns
> > and misconceptions. 
> > 
> > It might be just a few lines of code change to disable the check!
> > :-)
> 
> Regardless wether it's a few lines of code or somewhat more work,
> still, it's *technically* *possible*.
> 
> The decision is not about technical limitations, but rather more about
> what is the current understood business rules and processes.

This answer surprises me, because earlier in the thread you state:

    "It is not impossible to create these objects, but it does involve
    manual intervention by AFRINIC staff"

so at first glance it seems this is not about business rules, but
automating an operation that is currently performed manually. AfriNIC
already allows route-objects in the AFRINIC IRR where the ASN in the
"origin:" is a non-AfriNIC ASN.

> While I cannot promise anything, I have a high degree of confidence
> that should a sufficient portion of the community engage in
> non-handy-flappy discourse around this, there is a high degree of
> probability we could implement the community's well communicated
> wishes. (Whatever those may be). (-:
> 
> As has been pointed out recently, regardless of various presentations
> at various meetings, posting to the appropriate equivalent list to
> this ones, still some of our community feel we need to do *even* more
> in terms of communication and engagement! So I think you can
> understand why I'd be hesitant to implement any change or commit to
> doing so without a *lot* more community involvement first..

It is just removing a check that hinders legitimate use of the AFRINIC
IRR, shouldn't make it bigger than needed. :-)

I believe the check causes more work for AfriNIC staff and the end users
than necessary (or will in the very near future when RIPE closes the
loophole). The check actually may _cause_ more communication noise
because over and over again the AfriNIC staff will have to explain that
the webinterface can't accept the route-objects and manual intervention
is needed.

Kind regards,

Job