Hi Ronald, I reviewed your list of routes as follows...
> 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. > > 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. > > 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) 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. > > > NONAUTH / IPv4 routes (36): > --------------------------- > > 41.217.128.0/19 37034 2018-09-04 The /19 is skipped as part of the range doesn't appear in any RIR delegated stats. 41.217.128.0/20 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC 41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats. > 41.217.144.0/20 37034 2018-09-04 41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC 41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats. > > 41.217.144.0/21 37034 2018-09-04 41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC 41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC According to the implementation plan, "If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also considered to be unregistered." So I think we should be deleting this route object (i.e. a bug), we will check the implementation. > 41.242.84.0/22 37609 2018-09-04 41.242.84.0/22 is excluded (in discussion) > 170.56.0.0/16 15854 2018-09-04 > 170.56.0.0/16 702 2018-09-04 170.56.0.0/16 is excluded (in discussion) > 192.31.196.0/24 112 2018-09-04 IETF reserved block (skipped for now) > 192.88.99.0/24 1741 2018-09-04 ... Deprecated IETF reserved block (skipped for now) > 192.107.242.0/24 394784 2018-09-04 deletion pending > 204.144.127.0/24 40142 2018-09-04 deletion pending > 205.166.145.0/24 394784 2018-09-04 deletion pending > > NONAUTH / IPv6 routes (37): > --------------------------- > > 2001::/32 1101 2018-09-04 ... reserved by IANA (teredo tunneling), skipped > 2001:4:112::/48 112 2018-09-04 reserved for AS112-v6, skipped > 2002::/16 1101 2018-09-04 ... reserved for 6to4, skipped > 2011:4188::/48 12880 2018-09-04 Typo? (as suggested by Gert on 13th June) > 2c0f:f260::/32 36924 2018-09-04 deletion pending Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC
