Hi Randy, On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Randy Bush via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:26:34 +0900 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Foreign ROUTE objects in RIPE Database - final decision?

...

...

...

...

Question - Should the RIPE Database allow creation of ROUTE objects for non RIPE resources?

yes

then how can we use the traditional irrdb to distinguish between address blocks which have been authenticated by the ripe ncc and those which have not.

as you said, it would be good to have an strongly authenticated ownership which could assert routing. try the rpki; works across all regions.

You are right, RPKI does fit the bill in a number of ways, and I look forward to the operators taking advantage of the good bits. However this does not preclude the RIPE community from improving the quality of another commonly used source: IRR. As you know there are only 2 or 3 networks on this planet using RPKI in their operations, while I can point at many more networks using IRR to build their whitelists for provisioning. As you know there is a feature gap between IRR and RPKI. RPKI doesn't have an "AS-SET"-like replacement, and not all the RPKI TALs are as easy to obtain as their equivalent IRR data.

a least it's a more credible argument than thinking encouraging ipv4 run-out will increase ipv6, as opposed to nat, uptake. < dripping sarcasm >

OK, this seems off topic. Kind regards, Job