Re: is it common to proxy register route objects for the purpose of grouping them for use in an as-set

["Dale W. Carder" <dwcarder () es net>]

Thus spake Niels Bakker (niels=nanog () bakker net) on Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 07:09:06PM +0200:
> * ssw () internet2 edu (Steven Wallace) [Thu 26 Sep 2024, 18:36 CEST]:
> > One of the DDoS mitigation providers we work with creates proxy route
> > objects for its customers´ prefixes. These route objects specify a
> > common origin ASN rather than the actual origin ASN that would be seen
> > in routing tables. Their rationale is to bind the prefixes to a single
> > ASN, allowing the entire set of customer routes to be announced via an
> > as-set.
> >
> > Is this a common approach?
>
> I don't think there really are enough DDoS mitigation providers to speak of
> anything being common in that industry.
>
> Any IRRdb worth their salt will have such prefixes removed automatically if
> the protected entity is worth their salt and created RPKI ROAs for the
> prefixes in question, of course.

True enough...
 
> Wouldn't route-set be the better way to create a collection of routes..?
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-358/#1220

An issue I have seen here and there is that some folks have a sort of
underlying expectation that their network should maintain one master IRR
object representing their potential downstream cone.  

Given that one can't reference a route-set from an as-set, records like
these potentially could have been created in that context.

Dale