31 Jan
2021
31 Jan
'21
12:05 p.m.
Sorry for the top post, I'm on my mobile.
The announcements and RPKI are both things I've looked at once and just
sort of lost much care.. hopefully some people like yourself have submitted
resumes and joined the TAC.
I do believe RIPE has a fair deal that would allow amprnet to stay legacy
and do RPKI for perhaps their standard LIR fees if I'm remembering
correctly.
The announcements for rather selfish reasons after being denied a wider
prefix to announce more-specific as a way to steer traffic to a primary
site in multihome setup (all still just experimental but your list shows
some do get /22 even with experimental in their names). No hard feelings. I
just play my NetOps games elsewhere.
The new portal is probably already in the works. I'd like that it allowed
IRR entries for advanced users or a simple view with just description, AS,
prefix. Our whois server should be registered at ARIN to allow clients to
be referred to it. Our portal records can become IRR at the source..
Regards,
Scott
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 10:05 AM 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:
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.
various
reasons. Try the Whois server if you want by check specific
prefixes.
Where is this publicly documented?
drastically change their terms. We won’t do anything that risks losing our
legacy status.
Have the ARDC approached each RIR and discussed this?
several ways
it could be achieved and will be the focus for the TAC at some
point in the future.
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.
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
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. 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 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 Having
prefixes in RADB will not provide
trust anchor functionality.
Agreed, and RPKI is something we understand is desirable, there are > Which repo is this development taking place
in?
The development is taking place currently and will be open sourced when 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