Hello Job, On Mon, 2022-11-14 at 17:41 +0000, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote: > Dear DB-WG, > > Speaking in individual capacity. > > In RFC 2622 section 5 specifies the naming convention for AS-SET > objects. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1 > There basically are two styles: > > * "short" (example: AS-SNIJDERS) > * "hierarchical" (example: AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS) > > Problem statement > ================= > (...) > Solution proposal > ================= > I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new > AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style.
I support that. I have been confronted to issue with one of my downstream, which used to (legitimately) have AS-KIWI as AS-SET at RIPE IRR. However, AS-KIWI also exists in AFRINIC, which was parsed first by one of my connectivity provider, leading to incorrect filters (and, worse, anti-spoof access-lists). I solved the solution by making my downstream use another as-set, but I think it could be easier to have hierarchical IRR naming convention only. But it should become a mandatory thing on all IRR. -- 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
