<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123844">Hi Ronald</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123441"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123439">I understand your viewpoint, but I think it is a bit harsh to criticise the judgement of the early developers of the routing system. As Sandra explained in this post</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123472"><a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2017-October/005707.html" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123486" class="">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2017-October/005707.html</a></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123547"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123541">the early model was based on ASs. Then as the reliance moved more towards IPs the systems and procedures were modified to encompass the changing model. And also not all RIRs operated an IRR for many years so the ROUTE objects had to go somewhere. And Internet abuse may not have been much of a concern during the development of the early routing system and later modifications.<br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123438"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123731"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123730">It is generally accepted now that there are serious concerns with the current model and we are all working towards resolving these issues.<br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123735"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123730"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123812"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123730">cheers</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123827"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123730">denis</span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123829"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123730">co-chair DB WG</span></div><div class="qtdSeparateBR" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123403"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123407" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123406"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123405"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123404"> <font id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123455" face="Arial" size="2"> <hr id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123454" size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>; RIPE Routing Working Group <routing-wg@ripe.net> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, 11 January 2018, 2:23<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [db-wg] [routing-wg] Last Call - creation of new out of region ROUTE(6) objects<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123411"><br><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123410"><br clear="none">In message <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:CAKr6gn3ZUQ-Rcix4jAxiiO5ntenEWwNtkFZR2-2VRgc5WjcSbQ@mail.gmail.com" href="mailto:CAKr6gn3ZUQ-Rcix4jAxiiO5ntenEWwNtkFZR2-2VRgc5WjcSbQ@mail.gmail.com" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123409">CAKr6gn3ZUQ-Rcix4jAxiiO5ntenEWwNtkFZR2-2VRgc5WjcSbQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br clear="none">George Michaelson <<a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:ggm@algebras.org" href="mailto:ggm@algebras.org" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1515543859309_123832">ggm@algebras.org</a>> wrote:<div class="yqt1737665246" id="yqtfd96263"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">>I do not believe any future ROUTE and ROUTE6 object creation should<br clear="none">>be permitted routinely, for non-RIPE address space, inside the RIPE<br clear="none">>NCC routing registry.</div><br clear="none"><br clear="none">I would go futher than that and say that it was a colossal error in<br clear="none">judgement to have EVER allowed any of this nonsense.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I have a massive quantity of never before revealed evidence showing just<br clear="none">how prodigiously various crooks and spammers have abused this "feature".<br clear="none">I will share that, if there is anyone on these lists who is as yet<br clear="none">unconvinced of either the ability or willingness of various crooks and<br clear="none">spammers to drive the proverbial truck through this massive, gaping and<br clear="none">absurd security hole, mostly with respect to IPv4, but also, as has been<br clear="none">described by others, with respect to IPv6 as well.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">It is well past time for RIPE to stop allowing any random, arbitrary, and<br clear="none">unidentified orangutan with a keyboard to determine what routes are placed<br clear="none">into the global routing table.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">Regards,<br clear="none">rfg<div class="yqt1737665246" id="yqtfd17725"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"></div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>