In message <698723772.1802950.1515672632190@mail.yahoo.com>, denis walker <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I understand your viewpoint, but I think it is a bit harsh to criticise the judgement of the early developers of the routing system. As Sandra explain ed in this posthttps://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2017-October/0 05707.html the early model was based on ASs. Then as the reliance moved more towards I Ps the systems and procedures were modified to encompass the changing model . And also not all RIRs operated an IRR for many years so the ROUTE objects had to go somewhere. And Internet abuse may not have been much of a concer n during the development of the early routing system and later modifications.
It is generally accepted now that there are serious concerns with the curre nt model and we are all working towards resolving these issues.
To the extent that my comments may have appeared harsh, I do apologize. However I am not sure whether you and I are even talking about the same thing, as opposed to talking past one another. So let me endeavor to be clear. I don't pretend to understand very much about the routing system, or about RIPE's IRR, or the numerous foibles and complexities associated therewith. However I'm not sure that it takes a PhD in routing to grasp the fundamental problem here. As it has been explained to me, literally anybody can create a login account with/for RIPE and can then set about to create and enter whatever routes he or she desires and all of those will thenceforth be present in the RIPE data base... a now unreliable data base that, sadly, zillions of parties around the world are currently using to make decisions about route filtering. I feel sure that it can be argued... and that it most probably has been argued, probably at length... who exactly should be empowered to create specific route objects in the data base. Should it be the AS registrant, the registrant of the affected IP range, some combination or permutation thereof? But from my perspective all such discusssions amount to arguing over the proper placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Quite simply, there are five RIRs. Each of those has a set of dues paying members. Each of those could be, and I would argue, should be given some sort of a magic cookie... a cookie of a kind that non-dues-payers would never have. Only a party in possession of such a cookie should be permitted to enter route objects into the RIPE data base. This would at least keep the random drive-by criminals out, which would be a dramatic improvement over the current status quo, as I understand it. Regards, rfg