[lacnog] IRR @LACNIC
luis en luisbalbinot.com
Mie Mayo 2 21:15:33 BRT 2018
I think RPKI-based solutions are more elegant and reliable. Objects
stored in a IRR database are not really verified and/or validated and
we have *a lot* of proxy entries for those that do not use it. It's a
big mess really, but we get along with it.
But I don't see RPKI moving forward in the LAC region before Brazil
adopts it :-)
For now I think it's a good idea to deploy an IRR service. It's quick
and easy if we're going to manage objects only by e-mail. But we need
to get some people from the LACNIC to speak with major tier-1 and
tier-2 providers because there are several of them that won't trust
objects from lesser-known sources (e.g. ALTDB and TC).
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Job Snijders <job en ntt.net> wrote:
> Dear all,
> As discussed in my presentation today I am not entirely sure whether a
> real "IRR" for LACNIC is the best path forward.
> In a way, a lot of the concepts in IRR are very old-fashioned compared
> to the reliablity of RPKI. I think it makes more sense to invest in
> porting the necessary features from IRR to RPKI (such as RPKI AS-Cones,
> perhaps more things are missing), than to take a step back in time and
> create an IRR database.
> If LACNIC (as a convenience service) offers an "IRR interface" to query
> the RPKI data, that of course can be useful for legacy tools. Reudiger
> Volk wrote an excellent opinion piece on related IRR/RPKI efforts in the
> ARIN region, and I think much of what is said there can be applied to
> the LACNIC region as well: https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2018-April/001080.html
> Please invest time and money to improve modern technologies (RPKI),
> rather than invest in legacy technologies such as IRR!
> Kind regards,
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG