On 2 Jul 2021, at 16:47, denis walker wrote:
Maybe the low hanging fruit here is to not allow a ROUTE(6) object to be created if it references an unregistered ASN at the time of creation.
Maybe. I think the first step is to decide what, in principle, distinguishes “rotten” from “sound” ROUTE(6) objects, and to establish consensus on this principle. Then, it should be easy to articulate a criterion (or set of criteria) which can be used to test each object in the category of interest for “soundness”, and so identify the objects which are candidates for action. Next, consensus on the action to be taken will be needed, taking due account of the suggestion by George that there may be “reasons for making route objects and ROA for private ASN routing”, of Job’s warning of the risk of unintended consequences, of Cynthia’s view that no action is currently warranted, and of Roland’s enthusiasm for a clean-up. At that stage, what will have been agreed can be wrapped up as an NWI and handed over to the NCC for analysis, action, and reporting. Finally,
I will bow to advice from routing experts on this.
So shall I. I hope this helps. Best regards, Niall