On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 02:23:48PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Alain Hebert wrote:
Any feedback on best practices and "other avenue" about IRR naming?
Known problem - you're asking for trouble unless you filter IRRDB queries by source:
There isn't a global namespace for as-set names, unless you use source: as a database key element.
In addition to the above, one could use "hierarchical" AS-SET names, in some databases (from the top of my head: APNIC, AfriNIC, RIPE) only the owner of the ASN can create AS-SETs under that ASN's namespace. But more importantly: using the ASN in the AS-SET name chances of collision are reduced. Example: I defined "AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS" in the RIPE database, instead of "AS-SNIJDERS". Same for "AS2914:AS-GLOBAL" in NTTCOM. --- thread hijack --- Coincidentally, I'm working to define something like "AS-SETs in RPKI". There are a number of downsides to "AS-SETs in IRR": collisions between databases can exist, it is hard to figure out what AS-SET to use for what ASN (we rely on service order forms, peeringdb or guessing for that), and the way the recursion was done can too easily result in gigantic sets. I'd be interested to know what others think about improving feature parity between IRR and RPKI, and while doing that make the bad aspects of AS-SETs go away and keep the good parts. Thoughts? Kind regards, Job ps. raised the question here too https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/2018-January/005845.html