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 are misconfigured, no big deal.
operator error happens all the time. In most cases, it's reversible and life goes on.
As it stands, the proposal allows some types of operator error to cause irreversible changes to their exterior routing policy, with no notification or grace period. It may be that those changes are for the better, but there will also be cases where it's for the worse. The RIPE-NONAUTH data set contains garbage, but it also contains plenty of accurate objects.
Do you care to ellaborate...? Those "accurate objects" absolutely need to be there?
If this proposal does not provide a mechanism to notify holders of conflicting route/route6 objects and provide a reasonable grace period for sorting conflicts, then the proposal is harmful and should not proceed.
The notifications should be issued towards ASN holders? When the route/route6 objects were changed, there was no notification? I don't agree notifications are mandatory in this case, hence i do support the proposal. ps: I only think this needs some rephrasing -- "Due to the way authorisation (or lack of authorisation) is currently set up, there is room for abuse in the RIPE Database, by creating out-of-region inetnums and out-of-region ASN.s without the consent of the resource holder." As of today, after NWI-5 implementation, these new objects shouldn't be possible. :-) Cheers, Carlos
Nick