[db-wg] NWI reviews: NWI-3 - Afrinic IRR Homing

Job Snijders wrote on 30/09/2020 21:38:
> A change of scope probably warrants a new NWI, as NWI-3 was (at the
> time, in that context) specificly targetted to help mop up after the
> transfer of inetnum/inetnum6s when AFRINIC was instantiated.

you're probably right here.

> The thinking in developing RIPE-731 was that RPKI information supersedes
> IRR information as following: RPKI information (when applying the RFC
> 6811 procedure with EBGP 'invalid == reject' import policies) result in
> a state of the network where what conflicting RIPE-NONAUTH route/route6
> objects document would be rejected because of RPKI ROV. As such
> automated deletion of the objects is warranted. In this regard RPKI data
> exists on a different (higher?) 'plane' than the data in the unvalidated
> IRR 'plane'. Building city upon city so to speak.
> 
> The same cannot trivially be said for IRR objects superseding other IRR
> objects, I've never seen documentation from standards bodies describes
> how one IRR route object could warrant the removal of an IRR object in
> another IRR database under different administration.

Where's the documentation from an SDO which says that RPKI should 
invalidate a RIPE IRRDB entry? DB-WG is not an SDO :-)

> Of course, in practise such removals happens from time to time as
> operators send complaints to IRR database operators 'look, in the
> authoritative APNIC database we documented XYZ, the objects in
> NTTCOM/RADB/RIPE-NONAUTH are not what we want'.

There needs to be more than this.  If there's a material change in an 
address allocation in another registry, then this may invalidate the 
basis for the route(6): entry in the ripe irrdb.  We should probably 
have a think about what sort of actions could invalidate the routing 
situation, e.g.

- deletions
- transfers, whole or partial
- new creations

This doesn't need to be an immediate hard delete process.  Something 
like the ripe-731 process would work well, but possibly with an option 
to allow people to halt the deletion either temporarily or permanently, 
or to refer it for manual review?

> I personally believe RIPE-731 is sufficient of a cleanup process to
> eventually eliminate all problematic fossils... but it is a multi-year
> process.

It won't eliminate everything - there will be irrdb fossils until the 
heat death of the universe.  But the fossil elimination process can be 
sped up by having more inputs into it.

NIck