Hi Job,
On Oct 23, 2024, at 13:56, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe, keep in mind that - as things stand - BYOIP automation is possible
> because RIRs are not restricting what can be put in IRR/WHOIS "remarks:"
> fields; quite some cloud providers rely on this permissionless
> mechanism.
Yep, I'm aware of that mechanism.
Our observation at Cloudflare is that many of the kinds of customers that want
to onboard BYOIP prefixes do so through one of a small handful of leasing
providers ("IP brokers") who are in the business of understanding concepts like
the IRR and RIRs and "remarks:" fields, and for them this probably works fine.
However, there are other customers for whom dealing with things like the IRR
and RIRs is less straightforward, and in particular for whom updating "remarks"
fields in RIR inetnum-like objects is inevitably manual.
> In context of RSC: the moment a 'purpose' field (which MUST contain a
> name from a to-be-created IANA registry with some kind of policy) is
> introduced, RSC as a technology loses all its flexibility and
> payload-agnosticism and becomes something where both the IANA registry's
> policy and each individual RIR become a gatekeeper for the
> functionality.
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting anything so rigid. Just that there could be a
particular document type whose structure was well-understood and consistent
across providers, that might be possible to validate such a document against a
schema in some meaningful way to make sure it's not obviously broken, that
could be distributed between relevant parties by way of an RSC instead of a
"remarks" field.
I am not suggesting any reduction in flexibility in the signed checklist, just
imagining there might be some interop value in exchanging data about BYOIP in a
way that was consistent between service providers.
Joe
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
