On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > > Its a hand-mediated inetnum-only route object. Previous practice was > > to wait for explicit approval from the AS holder. Now, its created > > first, and withdrawn if there is an objection. > > > > There have been no complaints. APNIC HM are considering portal > > changes and other process work to automate this. > > The holder of the aut-num is sent an email asking them to contact > APNIC if they would like the route object to be removed. > > Alex Band has asked for the RIPE community's opinions on whether this > would be a good thing for RIPE to implement. If you have an opinion > about it, please speak up!
There are a number of advantages to this approach, for instance it makes it far easier to authorise 'foreign' ASNs to announce a prefix. For instance if a RIPE region based inetnum owner wants NTT / AS2914 (an ASN from outside the RIPE region) to announce the prefix on their behalf, to get a route object created in the RIPE IRR, I would have to create a faux copy of autnum AS2914 in the RIPE IRR to jump through the double authorisation hoop. Such faux copies pollute the global IRR system. Aside from APNIC, JPNIC/JPIRR also has positive experiences with the mechanism where the autnum owner is not required to authorise route-object creation, only the inetnum owner. If the community shows sufficient support for this direction, we'll draw up an implementation plan and formulate the fine print and all details. Kind regards, Job
