[ppml] Staff Comments Regarding Policy Proposal 2006-3
owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 5 13:54:59 EDT 2006
On Oct 5, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Sandy Murphy wrote:
>> The policy duplicates
>> capabilities of the routing registry and could be addressed by
>> this existing functionality.
> It is true that RPSL route objects convey much the same origination
> information as is proposed to be collected in templates.
> However, the current ARIN IRR, according to recent messages on the
> list, contains information that is pulled in from other IRR sources.
> The authenticity of this data can not be verified by ARIN.
As I understand it, the IRR does not "contain" this data, but, does
references to this data. Also, all of the records contain a Source:
which indicates which IRR the data came from. A such, you can,
if you want to be certain, examine that field and if it isn't an RIRs
IRR, you can discard the data.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the maintainer in the IRR is
to the ASN, not the Prefix.
> For route objects stored in the ARIN IRR, according to information I
> was told early this year, ARIN does not presently verify the person
> registering the object against POC info in the resource database as
> is done for address and AS objects. So ARIN could, but does not,
> authenticate this information.
Hence my belief that the effort being expended on putting this proposal
through the policy process would be better spent on improving the IRR
process and accessibility.
However, such belongs in the Comment/Feedback process recently
announced more than in the policy arena at this time, as, it is not
related to Internet Resource Policy, but, Route Authentication.
I'm not saying the goal is bad, just that you're using the wrong hammer
to pound the screw into the sheet metal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the ARIN-PPML