nanog mailing list archives
Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake)
From: sandy () tislabs com (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
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.
Current thread:
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Brandon Butterworth (Aug 14)
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Pekka Savola (Aug 15)
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Randy Bush (Aug 15)
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Sandy Murphy (Aug 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Brandon Butterworth (Aug 15)
- Re: route policy (Re: Public shaming list for ISPs announcing other ISPs IP space by mistake) Pekka Savola (Aug 15)