Den 16-10-2018 kl. 03:56 skrev denis walker via db-wg:
> (...) So should we also be promoting
> the RIRs authoritative IRRs over commercial IRRs so that ROUTE objects
> can all be created with proper authorisation?
In my mind. It makes sense if commercial IRRs were never born. And
databases of r
>>> Alex - just create the route object in the correct database.
>> no impure genetics in the ripe database. they should live in theit own
>> neighborhoods!
> I don’t understand what you intend to convene to the working group.
> Genetics are not part of this policy proposal.
maybe. but segregati
IPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 Aims to Delete Conflicting
Non-authorative IRR Objects
Dear Nick,
On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:38:12PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
> Marco Schmidt via db-wg wrote on 11/10/2018 14:18:
> > We just published the RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 18:30 Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
> > Alex - just create the route object in the correct database.
>
> no impure genetics in the ripe database. they should live in theit own
> neighborhoods!
I don’t understand what you intend to convene to the working group.
Genetics a
> Alex - just create the route object in the correct database.
no impure genetics in the ripe database. they should live in theit own
neighborhoods!
randy
Dear Alexander,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:21:09PM +0300, Alexander Azimov wrote:
> Why don't delete RIPE-NONAUTH at all?
That is fine by me - but I think this community may appreciate a softer
landing. Deleting the data-set resolves a number of concerns, but I'm
also happy to just clean it up us
Why don't delete RIPE-NONAUTH at all?
If there is no legal use of it - there is no need to maintain it.
If there are legal use cases - you would create unpredictable operational
problems, when the customer will set up an ROA, forgetting for a moment
that provider is advertising its prefix for him,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 16:35 Alexander Azimov via db-wg
wrote:
> There is only one good thing about mistakes - if you can fix it.
> Here if one fails to properly configure ROAs it may lead to ongoing
> operational problems, that can't be fixed even after fixing ROAs, since
> RIPE-NONAUTH databas
2Robert
How does it help to get rid of commercial IRRs? It's only RIPE policy, it
doesn't work like GPDR. :)
2Job
There is only one good thing about mistakes - if you can fix it.
Here if one fails to properly configure ROAs it may lead to ongoing
operational problems, that can't be fixed even afte
Hi,
Where can we express our support for this RIPE Policy proposal?
We think it is a great idea and gets rid of commercial IIRs where you can
register just about anything which is or is not yours...
Robert Heuvel
atom86 (AS8455)
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Dear Nick,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 02:21:00PM +0200, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 13:00, Job Snijders wrote:
> >
> > If we deconstruct RIPE-NONAUTH’s current state of affairs we already
> > are facing a irreversible concept: if one deletes an object in
> > RIPE-NONAUTH, it can never
On 15 Oct 2018, at 13:00, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> If we deconstruct RIPE-NONAUTH’s current state of affairs we already are
> facing a irreversible concept: if one deletes an object in RIPE-NONAUTH, it
> can never be restored.
If someone deletes their nonauth route/route6, they’re making an exp
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:52 Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:31, Job Snijders wrote:
> >
> > I'm hesitant to add such things because we don't have such a
> > notification & grace period in BGP Origin Validation process when
> > processing BGP route announcements either.
>
> You don
On 15 Oct 2018, at 11:31, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> I'm hesitant to add such things because we don't have such a
> notification & grace period in BGP Origin Validation process when
> processing BGP route announcements either.
You don’t need one there. If there’s a problem with those you can back o
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 10:27:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> There's no need for a new proposal: a notification mechanism and a
> grace period can be built into either the proposal or else the
> operating procedure.
>
> Some of these old route objects have been there for many years.
> Another
Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 14/10/2018 11:40:
This policy proposal concerns exclusively the RIPE-NONAUTH IRR
database. If you feel strongly about the information in the "RIPE" IRR
source feel free to make a new proposal.
There's no need for a new proposal: a notification mechanism and a gra
Hi,
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48:
When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake.
When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it
is an operator error. When one misconfigures things... they a
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:32:44AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48:
> > When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake.
>
> > When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it
> > is an operator error. When one misconfigures thin
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:34 PM Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
> > once a route/route6 object in RIPE-NONAUTH becomes in conflict with a
> > RPKI ROA it should no longer exist.
>
> and once a route/route6 object in the ripe irr instance comes in
> conflict with a roa published anywhere in the r
> once a route/route6 object in RIPE-NONAUTH becomes in conflict with a
> RPKI ROA it should no longer exist.
and once a route/route6 object in the ripe irr instance comes in
conflict with a roa published anywhere in the rpki, it should no longer
exist?
randy
Job Snijders wrote on 14/10/2018 07:48:
When an operator makes a mistake, they've made a mistake.
When someone needs to create multiple ROAs, but only publishes one - it
is an operator error. When one misconfigures things... they are
misconfigured, no big deal.
operator error happens all th
Dear Nick,
On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 10:38:12PM +0100, Nick Hilliard via db-wg wrote:
> Marco Schmidt via db-wg wrote on 11/10/2018 14:18:
> > We just published the RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR
> > Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", to the Routing
> > Working Group ma
Marco Schmidt via db-wg wrote on 11/10/2018 14:18:
We just published the RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR
Database Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", to the Routing
Working Group mailing list.
The goal of the proposal is to delete an non-authoritative object
stored in the RIPE
Dear colleagues,
We just published the RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-06, "RIPE NCC IRR Database
Non-Authoritative Route Object Clean-up", to the Routing Working Group mailing
list.
The goal of the proposal is to delete an non-authoritative object stored in the
RIPE IRR, if it conflicts with an RP
24 matches
Mail list logo
