Re: [44net] Concerning over undocumented BGP announcements

they drastically change their terms. We won’t do anything that risks losing our legacy status. I will just throw this in here and say that the RIPE NCC does allow for "non-member service contract" which doesn't convert your legacy resources but does allow you to use RPKI. https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/legacy-resources/ripe-ncc-services… I believe you might have to pay the fee though but unlike ARIN it doesn't scale with size, and it is currently 1400 EUR/year which seems totally reasonable for the ARDC. An example of this is RGnet's /16, it is legacy status while being able to use RIPE NCC's RPKI services. https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/lookup?source=ripe&key=147.28.0.0%20… -Cynthia On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 4:04 PM Nat Morris via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 2:55 PM G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 31 Jan 2021, at 14:09, Nat Morris <nat(a)nuqe.net> wrote: > > > > > > Which blocks did you report? > > > > I don’t really want to go into specific details on an open mailing list. > Suffice to say that keeping an eye on these and responding to problems > keeps me busy enough! > > Why not? what is to hide? hijack discussions happen on other mailing > lists in the public. > > So no more comment from yourself as the BGP co-ordinator on the > prefixes in the report? > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nb4cTYVG1tm4HpxgPp7TAcgZ_qOlcej1whd… > > If you really do have the details on all these prefixes, there should > be no reason you can't provide a statement on each, if it is an > expected announcement, misconfiguration or hijackk > > Without you being slightly more forthcoming in public, in my eyes it > puts the whole integrity of co-ordinating AMPRnet BGP announcements in > doubt. > > > > Any explanation for these prefixes announced in the UK by AS61337, > > > along side your portal prefixes, they are not documented at all in the > > > portal: > > > > Not all allocations appear in the public listing on the portal, for > various reasons. Try the Whois server if you want by check specific > prefixes. > > Where is this publicly documented? > > > > RADB is ok, but not sufficient for the future. A better investment > > > would be for the ARDC to negotiation with one of the 5 RIRs for > > > prefixes to be registered there, so we could all benefit from use of > > > their RPKI trust anchors. > > > > I can’t see that happening anytime soon I’m afraid, if ever, unless they > drastically change their terms. We won’t do anything that risks losing our > legacy status. > > > > Having prefixes in RADB will not provide > > > trust anchor functionality. > > > > Agreed, and RPKI is something we understand is desirable, there are > several ways it could be achieved and will be the focus for the TAC at some > point in the future. > > > > >> Which repo is this development taking place in? > > > > The development is taking place currently and will be open sourced when > it’s ready. In the meantime, if you want to have input on any features you > would like to see, feel free to contact Rosy and/or myself. > > I'd like to see planning for this taking place in the open, not closed. > > > > I noticed the github.com AMPRnet Portal repo has been removed. > > > > There was no point in it being there, we tried that route a couple of > years ago and didn’t get anywhere. > > Nat, > > > > -- > Nat > > https://nat.ms > +44 7531 750292 > > _________________________________________ > 44Net mailing list > 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org > https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net >