[routing-wg] Adding "::" notation to RIPE DB

Hi,

See my reply below.

On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 4:32 PM Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> wrote:
>
> On 10.11.2022 15:31, Netmaster (exAS286) wrote:
> > Arnold Nipper wrote on Thursday, November 10, 2022 2:14 PM:
>  >
> >> Isn't there only a limited number of "trusted" IRRs? Hence, moving
> >> to ASx:AS-SET would be a huge step forward.
> >
> > Would you trust e.g. RADB and/or NTTCOM? If not, you likely miss quite
> > some information. If you do ... who's the one owning AS517 in NTTCOM,
> > and who's the one owning it in RIPE? [SCNR using AS517 for that ...]
> >
>
> Hmmm ... isn't this information [0] trustworthy anymore?
>
>
> Arnold, and please give me back *my* ASN :D
>
> [0] https://www.irr.net/docs/list.html

That list still contains open registries like ALTDB and RADB.
One of my upstreams added a route object in RADB without my consent.
(It was identical to one in the RIPE DB that I created so not a huge
issue in this case)

In my opinion, at this point, when all RIRs have their own
authoritative IRR databases requiring authorization*, we should only
really consider those** as authoritative.
I see very limited purpose for any other IRR DB.
Sure there are still plenty of objects in those other IRRs but those
objects should probably be migrated over to the relevant RIR managed
IRRs.

Slightly off-topic maybe but I will also say that personally I see IRR
and especially as-sets/route-sets as a lost cause and I'm not sure if
it is worth trying to fix it. To me it seems like a much better idea
to just spend our effort on putting in the features in RPKI to make it
so it can replace IRR entirely. As others have pointed out, it could
very well take a very long time to get widespread support for a
feature like this.
These tweets[1] from Ben Cox who many of you might know really
highlights another issue with recursive as-sets. (Essentially, there
are as-sets that are recursively so big as to include more AS's than
exist in the DFZ. To me feels like you might as well just ignore the
filter entirely and just always accept in such a case.)

* = I'm not 100% certain if LACNIC's IRR DB requires authorization but
I hope it does.
** = Possibly also NIRs if they run their own IRR DBs that make sure
that only the orgs holding the resources can create objects for them.

[1]: https://twitter.com/Benjojo12/status/1578417574790205441

-Cynthia