Hi Gert, > I might be a bit old and stupid, but let me paraphrase if I understand this > right:
> - people put crap into the RADB all day long > - so we add an API for the RIPE DB so that the RADB operators can > auto-check whether a given (prefix,as) tupel has been authorized by > the owner in their corresponding registry (here: RIPE) > correct? That is the initial described intention .. but it could be used in the future for other things as well. Like a digital LOA .. or apps .. > If yes, I don't think this is a good approach - because if the RADB and > other operators actually were *interested* in reducing the amount of crap > in their database, they could cross-check RIPE route:/route6: objects > already today, without any new API needed. If there would be a route object in the RIPE DB, the problem wouldn't exist would it .. ? The issue is specifically for NON-RIPE AS numbers with RIPE IP Resources .. that aren't maintained for route objects in the RIPE DB ... > Evidence shows that they are not interested, even when presented with > "hey, there is garbage in your database, look at the RIPE DB for the > correct route: object" nothing happens. I don't share the same experience that you have on this with RADB, I do see that with Savvy for instance ..... Level3 just takes a month.. but it will be picked up is my current experience.. > Ceterum censeo: RADB must die, and as this proposal will not speed up the > process, so it's not helping. That is a bit harsh ... > (NTT, on the other side, is already cross-checking - so I'm not sure I see > the benefit for them. But if Job convinces me that it makes life easier > for them, I stand corrected) I'm sure that NTT could provide insight in how they are currently doing it. > Gert Doering > -- router operator, and victim of RADB garbage -> hijacks The goal is to limit the options so that spammers can't initiate hijacks ... So there is a common goal .. Regards, Erik Bais
