My apologies to all. My interests and attention are getting pulled in so many different directions these days that I tend to forget the answers to questions that I seem to vaguely remember having already asked. So, at the risk of repeating myself, what's the current policy on stale route objects in the data base that refer to current bogon address space? I'm specifically interested in 103.86.68.0/22 at the moment. route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH
Dear Ronald, On 27/05/2021 01.35, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
My apologies to all. My interests and attention are getting pulled in so many different directions these days that I tend to forget the answers to questions that I seem to vaguely remember having already asked.
So, at the risk of repeating myself, what's the current policy on stale route objects in the data base that refer to current bogon address space?
I'm specifically interested in 103.86.68.0/22 at the moment.
route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH
I notice that the "source:" here is RIPE-NONAUTH and not RIPE. Anything in RIPE-NONAUTH is dubious. You can limit query results to only authoritative answers with the "-s RIPE" flag. Cheers, -- Shane
In message <bc7cfeff-cb9c-f853-d559-af523bfcd629@time-travellers.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH
I notice that the "source:" here is RIPE-NONAUTH and not RIPE. Anything in RIPE-NONAUTH is dubious. You can limit query results to only authoritative answers with the "-s RIPE" flag.
Thank you. I am aware that RIPE-NONAUTH is dubious. My question was more along the lines of "Should this be in the data base AT ALL?"
Roland, On 27/05/2021 18.43, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
In message <bc7cfeff-cb9c-f853-d559-af523bfcd629@time-travellers.org>, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH
I notice that the "source:" here is RIPE-NONAUTH and not RIPE. Anything in RIPE-NONAUTH is dubious. You can limit query results to only authoritative answers with the "-s RIPE" flag.
Thank you.
I am aware that RIPE-NONAUTH is dubious.
My question was more along the lines of "Should this be in the data base AT ALL?"
Ah, okay. I hope that the other replies have clarified that enough! Cheers, -- Shane
Hi Ronald, I think it was this: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html and https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006885.html "If there is no objection from the DB-WG, I'd like to turn this proposal into a Numbered Work Item." ie: should be on the way to Numbered Work Item Frank On 27/05/2021 02:35, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
My apologies to all. My interests and attention are getting pulled in so many different directions these days that I tend to forget the answers to questions that I seem to vaguely remember having already asked.
So, at the risk of repeating myself, what's the current policy on stale route objects in the data base that refer to current bogon address space?
I'm specifically interested in 103.86.68.0/22 at the moment.
route: 103.86.68.0/22 origin: AS131477 mnt-by: HUAJUAN-MJJ-MNT created: 2018-02-24T19:00:10Z last-modified: 2018-09-04T19:09:05Z source: RIPE-NONAUTH
In message <8d82b6a9-210f-6e67-a31e-16c90118b2cf@geier.ne.tz>, Frank Habicht <geier@geier.ne.tz> wrote:
I think it was this: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html and https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006885.html "If there is no objection from the DB-WG, I'd like to turn this proposal into a Numbered Work Item."
ie: should be on the way to Numbered Work Item
Thank you for the pointer and the reminder. I shall patiently await the completion of the Work Item. Regards, rfg
Hi Ronald It was agreed that the RIPE BNCC can go ahead with this regular cleanup without an NWI https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-May/006952.html so it is in progress already. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Thu, 27 May 2021 at 18:46, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
In message <8d82b6a9-210f-6e67-a31e-16c90118b2cf@geier.ne.tz>, Frank Habicht <geier@geier.ne.tz> wrote:
I think it was this: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html and https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006885.html "If there is no objection from the DB-WG, I'd like to turn this proposal into a Numbered Work Item."
ie: should be on the way to Numbered Work Item
Thank you for the pointer and the reminder.
I shall patiently await the completion of the Work Item.
Regards, rfg
In message <CAKvLzuEy84e0G5XZ57pKLXqqOTc16Y1p8R8EXS3h5xMQ5Bat3A@mail.gmail.com> , denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
It was agreed that the RIPE BNCC can go ahead with this regular cleanup without an NWI
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-May/006952.html
so it is in progress already.
Excellent. Thank you.
participants (4)
-
denis walker -
Frank Habicht -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Shane Kerr