[106876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sandy Murphy)
Fri Aug 15 09:41:14 2008
To: brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk, pekkas@netcore.fi
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0808151353170.11063@netcore.fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy)
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:56:09 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola wrote:
>I'm not sure I follow. Many of these aliens are in fact registered in
>RADB, so AFAICS, there that is no reason for them to be registered in
>RIPE DB.
>
>On the other hand, some want to register them in RIPE DB because some
>operators just want to use RIPE DB e.g. for data consistency etc.
>reasons. But putting data without practically any authorization in
>RIPE DB doesn't seem to be a useful model in the long run.
As I understand things, the "without practically any authorization"
model holds for *everything* registered in the RADB. Right?
If that's not a useful model for the RIPE DB, what about the RADB?
--Sandy
P.S. Not to pick on the RADB. Most IRRs, as I understand it,
enforce little in the way of authorization. It's just that the RADB
was mentioned.
