Hi Nick On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 20:11, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > denis walker via db-wg wrote on 22/11/2022 19:00: > > Any thoughts on this? There are 2128 AUT-NUM objects with source > > RIPE-NONAUTH. Do we want these to be able to authorise the creation of > > hierarchical AS-SET objects when we don't know who maintains the > > AUT-NUM objects? > > I don't see a particular reason to prevent holders of existing NON-AUTH > ASNs from defining a hierarchical AS-SET object associated with their > ASN. The as-set object would be no more or less authoritative than the > aut-num object.
Then another option could be to only allow such objects to also have the source NON-AUTH > > > Another suggestion. There are 1361 short named AS-SET objects that > > don't have any 'members' or 'mbrs-by-ref' attributes. In other words > > they are operationally empty objects. (This includes AS-AMAZON.) We > > could introduce an automated cleanup process similar to the way we > > remove unreferenced PERSON and ROLE objects. If an AS-SET object > > remains operationally empty for 90 days it will be automatically > > deleted. This would include hierarchical objects. The hierarchical > > objects can easily be recreated by the ASN maintainers at any time if > > they are needed later. This gets around the problem of who has the > > authority to remove rogue objects. It becomes a database cleanup > > operation. Any thoughts? > > Careful with this, e.g. AS-NULL. There are some situations where > referencing an empty set can be useful in RPSL. We have a mechanism to protect specified PERSON and ROLE objects from automatic deletion. We could also protect AS-NULL from such automatic deletion. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Nick > -- 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
