RIPE DB transition and RFC2725

Lu, Ping (plu at cw.net) on March 9:
> Finally somebody express the same concerns as ours.
> 
> I have a discussion with the RIPE staff at the RIPE-38 meeting about this.
> 
> There are two seperate issues here:
> 1. The RFC doesn't say a implementation (like RIPE-DB v3.0) should allow
> foreign references ( using objects from other RR database) or not.

RFC does not prohibit foreign references.  As a matter of fact, RIPE
has a workaround that does this.

Please also see the companion RFC RFC 2769 for making RFC 2725 checks
across registries. RFC 2769 and 2725 together yield a global
distributed registry. Of course, it requires cooperation form other
(at lease regional) registries. 

> 2. The assumption of RIPE-DB v3.0 is that all object references have to be
> resloved locally( ie. with source: RIPE).
> 
> The 2nd issue means if any ISP with ARIN's AS number want to register a
> route with RIPE you have to register your PN(person) then your MT(mntner)
> then your AN(aut-num) with RIPE first.
> 
> So each ISP has to maintain a different set of objects with each RR.
> AS123(in RIPE) -> MNT-AS123-RIPE -> NIC456-RIPE
> AS123(in ARIN) -> MNT-AS123-ARIN -> NIC456-ARIN
> AS123(in APNIC) -> MNT-AS123-APNIC -> NIC456-APNIC
> AS123(in JP) -> MNT-AS123-JP -> NIC456-JP
> AS123(in DE) -> MNT-AS123-DE -> NIC456-DE
> ....
> 
> Just to remember to update all these information everytime there is a little
> tiny change.
> It is fun, isn't it ?
> 
> And NO you can't get all route information from just one RR unless we all
> sit down and seriously
> talking about the GLOBAL issues.
> 
> Ping Lu
> Cable & Wireless Global
> Network Tools and Analysis Group, USA
> W: +1-703-292-2359
> E: plu at cw.net
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frank Bohnsack [mailto:Frank.Bohnsack at de.uu.net]
> > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 7:43 AM
> > To: db-wg at ripe.net
> > Subject: RIPE DB transition and RFC2725
> > 
> > 
> > Dear colleagues,
> > 
> > Yes, I know the deadline for transition comments is over, but
> > after studying RFC2725 we need a confirmation for our understanding.
> > 
> > RFC2725 defined the need for an "as-block" object for each related
> > "aut-num" object and an "inetnum" object for each related 
> > "route" object.
> > 
> > The assignment of AS blocks and IP space is managed by IANA.
> >  * http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/as-numbers
> >  * http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > 
> > Does the new RIPE DB manage only "as-blocks" and "inetnums" which are
> > assigned to RIPE ?
> > 
> >  1/ And if I'm right, is it true that we can't store our ASes 
> > 702, 1270
> >     and a lot of routes (assigned to ARIN) in the new RIPE database ?
> > 
> >  2/ And is it true that we therefore can't set our route 
> > (assigned to RIPE)
> >     objects origin to our ASes ?
> > 
> > The solution for 1/ is moving to ARIN, but what might be the 
> > solution for 2/
> > ?
> > 
> > You say a big ISP is anyway talking to multiple IRRs, but I 
> > think customers
> > who want to peer with these can't get complete information 
> > while using RIPE
> > DB only.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Frank
> > 
> > -- 
> > Frank Bohnsack                       email  fb at de.uu.net
> > UUNET, A Worldcom Company            phone  +49 (0)231 972-1495
> > EMEA Access & Backbone Networks      fax    +49 (0)231 972-1188
> > Team Dortmund                        web    www.de.uu.net
> > 


Cengiz

-- 
Cengiz Alaettinoglu           Packet Design