I agree with the idea of Routing Registry (although i'm more than sceptical about RADB in its present form, replacing distributed computation with a cental box not controlled by the service providers).
This is an excellent point, and raises a path that CA*net has tried to implement. I believe that the IRR has to follow "paths of administrative trust" model, and not a central registration model, since it is an administrative overlay on the routing protocol. What I mean is this: ISPs should run (or contract to run) their own routing registry (think of CA*net and RIPE as contracted database providers to member service providers in this model). This routing registry *database* gets signed using PGP and exchanged *in bulk* with its immediate peer neighbors and a central repository. ISPs then generate their configurations on this database. The IRR is the union of all ISP databases. Each ISP is responsible for the consistency and validity of its own database. The important point is that as databases are moved, they are signed, and this leaves a clear and specific audit trail of who certifies the validity of the registered prefixes. The central repository (the RA) acts in two roles: registry of last resort (although this will not scale for the entire Internet) and as a contracted central depository to assist the NAP routing for NSF. This central depository provides the opportunity for interesting reporting on configuration/topology/policy problems and issues. Their are many religious objections to RIPE-181. However, my view is that the facility it provides (a standard policy language and software to implement it) is so important, just the fact that it exists now is enough for me. When Nirvana arrives, I will deploy it. Until then, I will use RIPE software, and thank them and the RA (Merit/ISI/IBM) profusely for the work they have done. Eric Carroll University of Toronto Network & Operations Services External Networking Facilities Management CA*net Network Engineering