[ARIN-consult] Consultation on ARIN IRR Roadmap

[Jason Schiller]

Job,

thank you for the clarification on source=ARIN, vs ARIN-OLD.

makes sense now.

I also agree we should stay away from unsing "Legacy"
unless we are trying to specificly note the resource is
"ARIN Legacy space" (meaning it is not currently under
any ARIN RSA, and therefor the provenance is not clear
to ARIN).

I like alignment.. so ARIN-NONAUTH seems like a good choice.



___Jason


On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:42:02PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:19 PM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 04:06:28PM -0500, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > > > I am confused...
> > > >
> > > > the current ARIN IRR is rr.arin.net
> > >
> > > ARIN manages an IRR database called "ARIN" in a daemon running on host
> > > rr.arin.net. You can publish data from multiple databases via a single
> > > fqdn like 'rr.arin.net'. I think what David Farmer is talking about is
> > > the "source: ARIN" aspect of the data you show:
> > >
> > >     $ whois -h rr.arin.net 199.43.0.0/24 | grep source
> > >     source:         ARIN # Filtered
> > >
> > > RIPE is developing something similar, where non-authoritative data will
> > > be marked with "source: RIPE-NONAUTH" rather than "source: RIPE" to
> show
> > > which objects came into existance because of the chain of trust from
> the
> > > RIR data to the IRR data, and some didn't.
> > >
> > > With an example from the ARIN IRR:
> > >
> > >     job at vurt ~$ whois -h rr.arin.net -- "-B 192.0.2.0/24" | egrep
> > > "route:|source:"
> > >     route:          192.0.2.0/24
> > >     source:         ARIN
> > >     route:          192.0.2.0/24
> > >     source:         ARIN
> > >
> > > 192.0.2.0/24 is a Special Use IPv4 prefix (RFC 3330 / RFC 5735) and
> not
> > > owned by either of the organisations that created a route object for it
> > > in the ARIN IRR. It is crazy that there even are route objects for this
> > > prefix.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, IRR 'route:' objects covering prefixes like
> 192.0.2.0/24
> > > should either be purged from the ARIN IRR - or should be clearly marked
> > > by changing the "source: ARIN" to "source: ARIN-OLD" (or perhaps
> "source:
> > > ARIN-NONAUTHORITATIVE-LEGACY-GARBAGE" ;-))
> >
> > Yep, that is what I was trying to get at. I didn't know if "-" was a
> valid
> > character, since none of the current IRRs have a "-" in their source
> > field.  Therefore it was just easier to assume "-" wasn't valid.
> >
> > But if "-" is valid then "ARIN-OLD" is what I really thought of first,
> but
> > better yet is "ARIN-LEGACY" (and "ARIN-NONAUTHORITATIVE-LEGACY-GARBAGE"
> is
> > fine with me too;-)).
> >
> > And, then after a year or so all the "ARIN-NONAUTHORITATIVE-LEGACY-
> GARBAGE"
> >  magically just disappears.
>
> I'd avoid the term "LEGACY" as that may confuse some because we also
> have the concept of "Legacy IP space".
>
> Perhaps "ARIN-NONAUTH" to align somewhat with the work being done in
> RIPE?
>
> If a subset of the data in ARIN's IRR can be validated, and the set of
> objects that are not validated are tagged with "ARIN-NONAUTH" (since
> those objects are not authoritative due to lack of validation) - we'll
> be in much better shape.
>
> I maintain that no new "ARIN-NONAUTH" objects should be allowed to come
> into existence.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180223/466a82bf/attachment.html>