Dear all,
No objection from my side. I personally think Denis’ proposal is a reasonable progression aligned with the original intent of NWI-5.
As Maurice Moss (IT Crowd) famously said: “I’ll just put this over here with the rest of the fire” [1]
Kind regards,
Job
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 15:14, denis walker via db-wg <
db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Colleagues
Just a quick reminder in case you missed the previous email. Looks
like no one has any objections...
cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG
On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 16:43, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Colleagues
>
> There is some support for the idea that if AUT-NUM objects in
> RIPE-NONAUTH authorise the creation of AS-SET objects, these set
> objects will also be in RIPE-NONAUTH. There is also support for this
> to be considered as a bug from the implementation of 'NWI-5 Out of
> region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects'. So existing AS-SET objects whose
> creation was authorised by one of these RIPE-NONAUTH ASNs can be moved
> to RIPE-NONAUTH as part of a bug fix.
>
> Does anyone have any objections to such a 'bug fix'?
>
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
>
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 19:34, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> >
> > Cynthia Revström wrote on 30/11/2022 22:59:
> > > I am not sure if this feature is used or not however I think this is a
> > > very good reason to not go forward with a clean-up (at least until we
> > > have properly evaluated things).
> > > We will probably have to figure out some other way to deal with
> > > objects that are currently causing issues I think.
> >
> > the "feature" is used, yes. Some providers have customers in different
> > RIR service regions. Some organisations have address space registered
> > in different RIR service regions. It's impossible to avoid in many
> > situations.
> >
> > What's important right now is to close off the option to create new
> > unqualified as-set names, and to move the existing qualified non-RIPE
> > ASxxxx:as-set objects from source: RIPE to source: RIPE-NONAUTH.
> >
> > Denis was correct that this was a bug during the implementation of NWI-5
> > (not ripe-731 which I mistakenly quoted).
> >
> > After that, we can afford to spend a bit of time looking at potential
> > clean-up options. There are 1590 empty as-set objects. 700 of these
> > haven't been updated in the last 5 years, and some going back 20 years.
> >
> > I wouldn't lose too much sleep about deleting empty as-sets. Contact
> > people, set a timeout, and then delete. Worst case, people can
> > reference new, qualified as-sets.
> >
> > Nick
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg