Hi Ronald, I reviewed your list of routes as follows...
On 20 Jul 2021, at 21:03, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
According to information given to me by Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net>, the cleanup of bogon route objects which made reference to bogon IP address space should have been completed the night before last.
My latest analysis suggests that a few such route objects escaped the net and are still present within the NONAUTH data base. These route objects are summarized below. I'd appreciate it if others would take a look at these and tell me if they think that these route objects should or should not be present within the data base.
Note that both batches of bogon routes given below are really rather curious due to the fact that nearly all of the routes have the exact same last-modified date (2018-09-04) and a great many of them refer either to the 192.88.99.0/24 IPv4 block, which is apparently reserved by RFC 3068, or to some IPv6 block which is *not* clearly related to RFC 3068. I am frankly not sure what to make of any of these, but I do suspect that they are all invalid, because no RIR has assigned any of the relevant IP space to any resource member.
NONAUTH / IPv4 routes (36): ---------------------------
41.217.128.0/19 37034 2018-09-04
The /19 is skipped as part of the range doesn't appear in any RIR delegated stats. 41.217.128.0/20 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC 41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats.
41.217.144.0/20 37034 2018-09-04
41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC 41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats.
41.217.144.0/21 37034 2018-09-04
41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC According to the implementation plan, "If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also considered to be unregistered." So I think we should be deleting this route object (i.e. a bug), we will check the implementation.
41.242.84.0/22 37609 2018-09-04
41.242.84.0/22 is excluded (in discussion)
170.56.0.0/16 15854 2018-09-04 170.56.0.0/16 702 2018-09-04
170.56.0.0/16 is excluded (in discussion)
192.31.196.0/24 112 2018-09-04
IETF reserved block (skipped for now)
192.88.99.0/24 1741 2018-09-04 ...
Deprecated IETF reserved block (skipped for now)
192.107.242.0/24 394784 2018-09-04
deletion pending
204.144.127.0/24 40142 2018-09-04
deletion pending
205.166.145.0/24 394784 2018-09-04
deletion pending
NONAUTH / IPv6 routes (37): ---------------------------
2001::/32 1101 2018-09-04
... reserved by IANA (teredo tunneling), skipped
2001:4:112::/48 112 2018-09-04
reserved for AS112-v6, skipped
2002::/16 1101 2018-09-04 ... reserved for 6to4, skipped
2011:4188::/48 12880 2018-09-04
Typo? (as suggested by Gert on 13th June)
2c0f:f260::/32 36924 2018-09-04
deletion pending Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC