[ARIN-consult] RPKI/IRR Consultation Reminder and Update

[Dale W. Carder]

Thus spake Tauber, Tony via ARIN-consult (arin-consult at arin.net) on Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 06:16:22PM +0000:
> On 9/6/23, 10:15 PM, "ARIN-consult on behalf of William Herrin" <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 4:42 PM Job Snijders <job at fastly.com <mailto:job at fastly.com>> wrote:
> > > If I’m understanding you correctly, you don’t offer a compelling case, other than that - theoretically - one must exist
> > As one of the users, I don't want it.
> > That's as compelling an argument as there needs to be.
> >
> > Regards,
> 
> > Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> You don't say _why_ you don't want it.
> 
> Looking back to other commentors on this thread:
> 
> I found three that I think touched on this:
> 
> Dale Carder (ESnet):
> 
> ----
> I am estimating the default behavior should skew heavily towards
> Orgs who are relatively uncomplicated, and for them, the automagic
> maintenance of IRR objects can be a huge win in terms of simplicity
> as well as providing immediate benefit for the Internet at large
> with more data in trustworthy IRR sources.
> 
> We do need to recognize there are Orgs for whom this default behavior
> would not be necessary, or perhaps even reasonable.  I would believe
> them to be in the minority.  A few have chimed in as part of this
> discussion and to me, this effectively makes a case for opt-out
> functionality, communicated well in advance.
> 
> ----
> 
> Miles McCreadie (Midco Comm.):
> 
> ----
> Opt-in at the Organization level.
> 
> Opting in should not remove existing IRR route(6) objects that do not match a ROA though it would probably be useful to highlight any differences between IRR data and ROAs, possibly with an option to fully align the IRR data with the ROA.  (ie "The following IRR route(6) objects either match or are more specifics of the prefix in this ROA, click here to remove all the IRR route(6) objects that do not match the prefix in the ROA.  The non-matching IRR route(6) objects can be managed separately from the ROA.")
> 
> ----
> 
> Chuck Hague (Charter Comm):
> 
> ----
> I believe either and opt-in or opt-out option would be best per ORGID
> 
> ----
> 
> It seems these could be summarized as “I imagine there should be a knob but have no concrete reason why”.
> 
> Obviously, I'm removing some context and apologize for what may seem like a glib characterization.
> I really mean no disrespect, just trying to move things forward.

That is a completely fair assessment of my comment!

> I found Job’s extensive, detailed discussions to not including the opt-out to be compelling and will express my support for that approach.

I too find Job's commentary on the matter to be insightful and do believe 
that the approach he describes would put the ARIN region in a much stronger
position than where we are with the current proposal.

Dale