[lacnog] Propuesta para crear un IRR en LAC mantenido por LACNIC / Proposal to create an IRR in LAC maintained by LACNIC

[Job Snijders]

Dear Nicolas, LACNOG,

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 04:21:51PM -0200, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
> On repeated occasions at LACNIC events (especially in the peering
> tutorial) we have mentioned the need and importance of having an IRR
> (Internet Routing Registry).

I'm concerned that this effort (if implemented as an entirely separate
database) may lead to a data-duplication issue, where IRR and RPKI
databases could be out of sync with each other.

I also not sure the above would be user-friendly: having to maintain two
sets of data (IRR and RPKI) does not simply things.

> Especially the need given that today virtually all carriers that
> provide IP transit services and RTBH (Remote Triggered Black Hole)
> services require the registration of prefixes by ISPs in an IRR.

NTT is actually looking in the opposite direction: to stop requiring the
data to be published only in an IRR, but in cojunction with IRR also
allow data to be published in RPKI.

> Given that LACNIC is the one that manages the resources of IP
> addresses and ASNs for our region, and that has already implemented a
> RPKI system for certification of origin of the routes, it occurs to me
> that the creation of an IRR should not represent a significant effort.
> It is practically the same RPKI database with fewer functionalities,
> let's say, and maybe some new interface to query and obtain the
> prefixes and other data of a specific ISP, which can typically be
> stored in an IRR.
> 
> The consultation is to the LACNIC community of what do you think about
> requesting LACNIC to develop a project to implement an IRR as a
> service included in the membership?
> 
> I would like to hear the comments of everyone on these lists because I
> believe that one of the determining factors for LACNIC to consider
> generating the project is that there is a strong demand from the
> community to have this service.
> 
> By the way, many (practically all) other RIRs already provide that
> service to their members and the available alternatives (such as RADb)
> imply an annual cost of aprox US$ 500 that not all ISPs can pay
> (especially the smallest ones).

Perhaps a strategy would be to provide a 'read-only' mirror of the RPKI
data in IRR format. Is this what you suggest too? This way LACNIC
members don't have to maintain two sets of data: whatever the LACNIC
members input into the RPKI system would be reflected in an "IRR view"
on the same data?

Have the networks that ask for IRR, been consulted on why they can't use
RPKI data in their provisioning process?

Kind regards,

Job