Hi Ronald, > On 20 Jul 2021, at 21:03, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > According to information given to me by Edward Shryane <[email protected]>, > the cleanup of bogon route objects which made reference to bogon IP > address space should have been completed the night before last. >
To be clear (apologies it was not), the outstanding route objects were deleted *last* night, not the night before last. The cleanup job ran first on the morning of 30th June, the maintainers were emailed a week later on 6th July, and the route(6) objects were deleted two weeks after that (last night). In summary, the job deleted 863 route(6) objects in RIPE-NONAUTH, except for 7 which were excluded. We received two tickets from maintainers, asking to exclude those 7 route(6) objects from the cleanup, and we are currently in discussion with them. The latest split files in https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ were generated this morning around 05:50 UTC so do not contain the deleted route(6) objects. > My latest analysis suggests that a few such route objects escaped the > net and are still present within the NONAUTH data base. These route > objects are summarized below. I'd appreciate it if others would take a > look at these and tell me if they think that these route objects should > or should not be present within the data base. > I will check why the routes you listed were not scheduled for deletion. > Note that both batches of bogon routes given below are really rather > curious due to the fact that nearly all of the routes have the exact > same last-modified date (2018-09-04) I think this is because the NWI-5 implementation that created the RIPE-NONAUTH database for out-of-region route, route6 and aut-num objects was run on September 4th, 2018, and many of those objects have not been modified since then. > and a great many of them refer > either to the 192.88.99.0/24 IPv4 block, which is apparently reserved > by RFC 3068, or to some IPv6 block which is *not* clearly related to > RFC 3068. I am frankly not sure what to make of any of these, but I > do suspect that they are all invalid, because no RIR has assigned any > of the relevant IP space to any resource member. According to the implementation plan: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html if these ranges are not marked as "available" or "reserved" in an RIR's delegated stats, then it will be skipped, and I didn't find 192.88.99.0/24 in any RIR's delegated stats. (To Ronald and the list) Should we add other sources of bogon prefixes (e.g. RFC 3068) to the implementation? Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
