[db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?

I think it's about addressing abuse. If there's "bad things coming
in", one usually addresses the source IP address, not the source AS.
Also, one can move a prefix to another AS, but the ownership would
stay the same until returned to RIPE.

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> Dear Sandra,
>
> Thank you for this overview. You have cleared some of the mists of time
> and I am appreciative for that.
>
> It appears that over time, the 'root' of the conceptual model shifted
> from the AS holder to the IP space holder. Interesting.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 07:37:47PM -0400, Sandra Murphy via db-wg wrote:
>> > For those with long memories, why was authorisation required from the
>> > origin ASN and is that reason still valid? (I think it was this point
>> > that blocked the last attempt to take this option.)
>>
>> Well, my memory is that the routing registry was designed to express
>> the routing policy of an AS, and all other objects were authorized on
>> the basis of the holder of the AS.
>>
>> Adding authorization of the prefix holder in addition to the AS was
>> the new authorization step for the route object in RFC2725.
>>
>> But you should really ask Curtis Villamizar, who did all the heavy
>> lifting of the writing for RFC2725.  I recall sitting wide-eyed as
>> Curtis and Carol Orange discussed thorny routing issues.
>>
>> There are probably people around from RIPE who needed to do the
>> implementation of the trust model.  They might remember more.
>>
>> RIPE-120 of Oct 1994 said:
>>
>> Special Rules in the Routing Registry
>>
>> Because routes are  originated  by  autonomous  systems  the
>> autonomous system concerned should be the only one maintain-
>> ing route objects.  The maintainer of a route object is thus
>> expected  to  be  the  same as the one of the aut-num object
>> referenced in its origin attribute.
>>
>> RFC1786 of Mar 1995 says:
>>
>>    Route object update procedures
>>
>>    Adding a route object will have to be authorised by the maintainer of
>>    the originating AS. The actual implementation of this is outside the
>>    scope of this document.  This guarantees that an AS guardian has full
>>    control over the registration of the routes it announces [11].
>>
>> where [11] is a pointer to RIPE-120.
>>
>> —Sandy
>>
>> P.S.  Carol Orange’s name was on the first two versions of the RFC2725
>> draft, but disappeared in -02.  I don’t know why.
>