Re: Internet Routing Registries - RADb, etc

[Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net>]

courtneysmith () comcast net wrote the following on 1/16/2014 12:26 PM:
> On 16/01/2014 14:32, Blake Hudson wrote:
> > Thanks for the responses, these objects are all older. However, none of
> > them are stale or from previous owners, allocations, etc. Each of these
> > objects were posted to their respective IRR's after the IP space was
> > allocated to us. This leads me to believe that the individual IRR's really
> > do very little checking for accuracy and their usefulness is then
> > questionable.
> Oh yeah. I got hit by that sort of thing a week or two back. It wasn't
> origin: AS14179 / mnt-by: MAINT-AS28071, by any chance? AS14179 have been
> hijacking chunks of space from the various registries.
>
> Nick
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Another possible scenario.
>
>
>
> a.b.c.d/24->small_isp->regional_isp->Level3
>
>
>
> Imagine a regional ISP is a customer of Level3. Level3 filters the regional ISP based on Regional ISP's IRR objects. Small ISP buys access 
> from Regional. Small ISP doesn't maintain their own objects. Regional ISP wants Small's business so doesn't force the issue. 
> Regional manually maintains the filters. Regional adds objects under Regional's maintainer whenever Small request a filter change. If they 
> don’t, Level3 wont accept the announcement from them. Customer with a.b.c.d/24 has no idea about any of this.
>
>
>
> Now we are years later. Customer has either moved to another small ISP or Small ISP found a different regional ISP.
>
>
>
> a.b.c.d/24->small_isp->new_regional_isp->Level3
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> a.b.c.d/24->new_small_isp->new_regional_isp->Level3
>
>
>
>
>
> The original Regional ISP didnt remember to delete all the objects related to Small ISP's customers. The objects just sit there 
> until one day customer has interest in registring their own object. Customer sees entries for their /24 under Regional ISP's 
> objects. Customer knows they have never done business with Regional. Also the objects are newer than the customer's allocation 
> from their RIR. Customer comes to the conclusion that Regional ISP must have been hi-jacking their space or doing some other 
> naughtiness.
>
>
>
>
>
> Proxy registering objects isn't a good idea. However, the number of networks with allocations from ARIN registering 
> objects in any IRR appears to be extremely low. ARIN doesn’t charge you more to use rr.arin.net. Folks seem to not be aware 
> of IRR or perceive it provides no benefit to them. Will RPKI adoption suffer the same fate?

I can understand the scenarios you've described. In fact, the timing 
does seem to indicate that someone was thinking they were doing 
something helpful (the route objects were introduced around the time we 
started announcing the allocation). The part that doesn't make sense is 
that one of the route objects has valid information and the other three 
were entered for AS #'s that are not peers of ours and should not have 
ever been transit paths to L3. We do peer with folks that peer with L3, 
however the route objects in L3's databases are for different ASs.

I'm glad that ARIN provides an IRR, and hope to use it. With an 
authority that actually has the information necessary to perform 
authorization checks, I'm not sure why there's a need for independent 
IRRs to exist. Perhaps they filled a gap at some point in the past?

--Blake