[ppml] 2002-7 and "Abstract of [...]"

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 01:44:00PM -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
> once upon a time we tried to create a data base, RADB, IRR
> etc.  They don't seem to be getting as much use as they
> used to.

I don't see that assertion to hold water. RIPE and APNIC run 
them as part of the registry by default; seems that is the 
only way to get lazy folks to register stuff. Major (and minor) 
ISPs run their own IRR nodes and *require* customers to use 
them. 1239 and 701 are the only real holdouts; one significant 
IRR node proxy-registers stuff it sees from 1239 too. :-) It 
isn't a small list at http://www.irr.net/docs/list.html
 
> I am extremely leary of having the RIR's become involved
> in "asserting" whats in the routing table.  

Does this mean you think folks should be routing whatever they 
please, allocations be damned? Either the allocations are 
meaningful or they aren't; please choose. Seems that if the 
registry doesn't care about address squatters then who should?
 
> The failure modes of that database being corrupt, hacked
> or fat finger'd are to big to justify the value of it,
> IMHO.  If someone like ARIN did it I would expect them
> to carry a liability policy of multiple millions incase
> they fat fingered or other screwed the data up and cause
> someone get get dropped off the net that wasn't suppose
> to be.

Compare and contrast with what is done in RIPE and APNIC 
spheres if continuing down this thread. I wonder if this 
notion/assumption/attitude is the explaination why ALTDB 
still exists and ARINdb is under-populated? Or why most of 
the 'independant' IRR nodes are in the ARIn sphere?

All I was trying to (undercaffenated) do was point out 
legitimate operationals support of the concept of a "known-
to-be-small-net-multihoming-specific" block, a la 2002-7. 
Not sure how it veered into this arena. See below:

> > It is a Very Short step to dedicating and policing space for 
> > 'officially blessed small multihoming'. This would
> > - be consistnt with RIR roles and previous actions (ASNs not 
> >   used for multihomed entities can be revoked; ISPs and other 
> >   LIRs are tacitly encouraged to revoke space that *was*
> >   justified by multihoming when said multihoming doesn't 
> >   occur; etc)
> > - reduce deaggregation/holes in areas populated by aggregates
> > - give network operators additional tools to do *their* jobs 
> >   of filtering/fighting black-hatted-ness *without* making it
> >   the RIR's job (ie, i can filter against longest-match abuse 
> >   in space knpown to be populated with aggregates AND point
> >   any complainers to the Right Thing)
> >   
> > 
> > Do I want the RIRs managing the routing tables? No. Do I 
> > want registries to hold confirmed data, audit trails 
> > disambiguated, and everyone playing by the same rules? Yes.

The above is "support for 2002-7" FWIW.

Joe, still too low on coffee

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE