Dear Ed, Perhaps going forward, the guiding principle should be: "if info for a resource in RIPE-NONAUTH also available is in a 'better quality' location, then there is no need for the object continue to exist in the non-authoritative RIPE-NONAUTH database." IMHO 'better quality' locations would be: * RPKI ROAs * other RIR-managed IRR databases
* How many route/route6 objects have an exact, more-specific, or less-specific match in one of the four other RIR-managed IRR databases?
When I previously searched for a matching *route(6) object* in the other RIR's IRR mirror databases (with exact match ASN and exact or less-specific matching prefix) I found :
* AFRINIC: 29,847 * APNIC: 302 * ARIN: 1,604 * LACNIC: 56 * No match : 13,824
Of the 'no match' objects, how many are RPKI valid?
We can extend RIPE-731 to include VALID objects, if the DB-WG agrees. Can this be done as a new NWI ?
Perhaps the DB-WG chairs can chime in on procedures?
Is it enough to expect RPKI adoption to increase to eventually cover all delegated space, to eventually cleanup the RIPE-NONAUTH database?
I expect there to be a 'long tail', and there is no proof of termination.
Could we additionally implement a new cleanup by deleting RIPE-NONAUTH route(6) objects if matching a route(6) object in an RIR's authoritative database?
That sounds very reasonable to me. * Continue to delete RPKI-OV INVALID objects (the RIPE-731 mandate) * Delete RIPE-NONAUTH route(6) objects when they become RPKI-OV VALID * Delete RIPE-NONAUTH route(6) objects when they become *covered* by a route(6) object in another RIR's auth database. In all cases the RIPE-NONAUTH object deletion would be the consequence of 'a better source of information' existing elsewhere. Kind regards, Job