Dear colleagues,

A few observations:

- RIPE NCC has operated RIPE IRR as an open IRR based on community requirements 
for years. In my opinion, a very productive first step towards better data 
quality and maintenance of RIPE IRR is for the community to provide RIPE NCC 
with an operations policy for RIPE IRR.
At the moment there is no policy governing RIPE IRR, so even in case of clearly 
fraudulent route objects -specially for resources outside of RIPE Region- RIPE 
NCC has no guidance on how to proceed and the records ultimately stay there. 
Having some policy, no matter how lightweight it is, will have great effect on 
improving things. 
This was brought up in Routing-WG session in London and echoed in RIPE 
Database-WG as well and I strongly suggest the community to take action in that 
regard. Here at RIPE NCC we are keen to provide any help required in that 
regard.

- Now, into the issue of open IRRs. For RIPE Region resources, the process has 
enough clarity and there is authentication/authorisation in place. Although 
that can be improved -as it was suggested by RIPE NCC and a few members on 
different occasions- the data quality for out of the region objects are much 
lower and there is basically no auth. present. Current model, as it has always 
been, is a first-come first-served model where you can basically register any 
out of region resources in the public IRR and the objects will stay there, 
locking others who might want to change things.

- 4 out of 5 RIRs run IRRs. A simple solution would be to limit each IRR to 
RIR’s managed resources. However this solution has a few flaws and might have a 
negative impact:

        * Many operators only look into RIPE IRR and/or RADb and ask their 
users to register their routes in one of these databases before they can serve 
them, no matter in which region they are located. This might not be the best 
practice but it is the reality. Looking at IRR query load, RIPE Database IRR by 
far surpasses other RIRs routing databases. This means, restricting RIPE IRR 
might have a negative effect on documentation of routing data: I expect instead 
of changing process, operators might drop the requirement.

        * In many cases the ASN comes from one region and IP Prefix comes from 
another. Requirement from some IRRs (including RIPE’s) to include auth. for 
both ASN and IP Prefix only makes things more complex, specially if there are 
more restrictions.

        * Routes for many early registration and legacy resources from 
different regions are only documented in RIPE IRR. This includes critical 
information like route objects for most of Root DNS operators.

These points should be considered when thinking about a solution.

- The idea of having a single repository has been brought up a few times. 
Although it might be possible (very complex though, specially for users, 
because of different policies of each region) I personally don’t see the 
benefit in that. RIPE Database for example, already has a complete and 
consistent view of global registration and routing data, presented as GRS. So, 
if a user desires, they can query only RIPE database to get information about 
any resources. New technologies like RDAP (which is implemented by all RIRs) 
also address this issue as a user can query any RIR registry and get 
information in a single, well defined format.

- There are many technical possibilities to improve things and we have many 
smart people in our community who have already proposed solutions to fix 
issues. One thing to keep in mind is most of these solutions are transitional 
solutions and each of them can incrementally improve things. It is possible to 
interlink RIR auth. systems, it is possible to interlink RPKI and IRR, it is 
possible to mark resources with an auth. quality indicator, etc. The main 
question then becomes effectiveness, as almost all IRR data users with 
automated processes rely on IRRtoolset which doesn’t consider any of this new 
changes or many of documented RPSL features. So, solutions should either rely 
on improving quality of inserted data AND consider the enduser toolset 
capabilities and improvements.

Have a nice weekend,
Kaveh.

---
Kaveh Ranjbar,
Chief Information Officer, RIPE NCC.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Reply via email to