31 Jan
2021
31 Jan
'21
3:48 p.m.
Oh and I forgot to mention this too, Randy Bush (RGnet) also moved to the
RIPE NCC from ARIN for the same reason, and there are slides from a talk
here: https://iepg.org/2016-04-03-ietf95/160403.iepg-transfer.pdf
-Cynthia
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:46 PM Cynthia Revström <me(a)cynthia.re> wrote:
> 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.
Have the ARDC approached each RIR and discussed this?
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:
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.
various
reasons. Try the Whois server if you want by check specific
prefixes.
Where is this publicly documented?
they
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 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 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