[db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?
Horváth Ágoston János horvath.agoston at gmail.com
Thu Oct 19 09:35:43 CEST 2017
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 . >> >> where  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. >
[ db-wg Archives ]