ROA mirror to IRR?

George Michaelson ggm at
Tue Oct 26 22:16:18 UTC 2021

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:31 AM Shawn < at> wrote:
> Curious if any IRR databases are mirroring/importing ROA data - creating
> route|6 objects from ROA?
> LACNIC requires a route object to be created when creating a ROA.

> APNIC you create a route object, then may generate a ROA during that
> process.

This is a mis-characterisation of the situation. In APNIC, we have
implemented abstract routing management: you tell us the routes you
want to declare and have to elect to do ONLY route: object or ONLY ROA
-we make the ROA & route: objects aligned, to represent what you asked
for in the abstracted route. It's only if you specifically ask us to
make discrete, unaligned states in both worlds we do that. By default,
they mirror each other (modulo the limits of maxlen over the prefix at
hand: we don't make the "forest" of routes which would be needed
beyond a small distance maxlen - prefixlen)

Separately we kept the old whois object update path. you can elect to
make a route: object directly in the RPSL maintenance engine. If you
come into routes management, we flag the mis-alignment such as it is,
and you can make the ROA.



> Other RIR's, curious if anything tries to bring the two together?
> Applicable for networks that only use IRR data (do not yet validate RPKI),
> they could benefit.
> IRR questions:
> How do most large networks maintain (automate) their IRR records?
> Is it standard practice to accept more specifics (append IPv4 "le /24" and
> IPv6 "le /48")?
>  Or is it expected to have one IRR route per BGP announcement?

More information about the NANOG mailing list