Hi Job, I just replied to the previous thread regarding this so I have reposted it below (summary: +1/LGTM)
I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good reason for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either as there are none currently. https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&inverse=origin&rflag=true&searchtext=AS23456&source=RIPE So assuming that I didn't mess up the query and that there are in fact none currently, I think it is completely reasonable to exclude AS23456 as while not listed as "reserved" it is reserved for a specific internal (unlike AS112) use case. -Cynthia On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:24 PM Job Snijders via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > Good news everyone, most of the work was already done! :-) > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:08:18PM +0000, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg > wrote: > > > Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively > endorsing > > > the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been > reserved, > > > by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)? > > > > Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following > > > > 0 # RFC 7607 > > 23456 # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS > > 64496..64511 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs > > 64512..65534 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs > > 65535 # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN > > 65536..65551 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs > > 65552..131071 # RFC IANA reserved ASNs > > 4200000000..4294967294 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs > > 4294967295 # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN > > > > seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment > similar > > restrictions apply. > > The RIPE database already blocks creation of route/route6 objects for > almost all private ASNs, see source code here: > > https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/9e40c79dfb3b00f63471126e17d9a70c76ea3046/whois-commons/src/test/resources/whois.properties#L70 > > Which results in simple error message: > http://chloe.sobornost.net/~job/cant_create_private.png > > The only ASN missing from the 'whois.reserved.as.numbers' list, compared > to the list I provided is '23456'. > > I suspect that adding '23456' to the list indeed is not controversial. > > Kind regards, > > Job > >
