Dear all, No objection from my side. I personally think Denis’ proposal is a reasonable progression aligned with the original intent of NWI-5.
As Maurice Moss (IT Crowd) famously said: “I’ll just put this over here with the rest of the fire” [1] Kind regards, Job [1]: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ill-just-put-this-over-here-with-the-rest-of-the-fire On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 at 15:14, denis walker via db-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > Colleagues > > Just a quick reminder in case you missed the previous email. Looks > like no one has any objections... > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 at 16:43, denis walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Colleagues > > > > There is some support for the idea that if AUT-NUM objects in > > RIPE-NONAUTH authorise the creation of AS-SET objects, these set > > objects will also be in RIPE-NONAUTH. There is also support for this > > to be considered as a bug from the implementation of 'NWI-5 Out of > > region ROUTE(6)/AUT-NUM objects'. So existing AS-SET objects whose > > creation was authorised by one of these RIPE-NONAUTH ASNs can be moved > > to RIPE-NONAUTH as part of a bug fix. > > > > Does anyone have any objections to such a 'bug fix'? > > > > cheers > > denis > > co-chair DB-WG > > > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 19:34, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Cynthia Revström wrote on 30/11/2022 22:59: > > > > I am not sure if this feature is used or not however I think this is > a > > > > very good reason to not go forward with a clean-up (at least until we > > > > have properly evaluated things). > > > > We will probably have to figure out some other way to deal with > > > > objects that are currently causing issues I think. > > > > > > the "feature" is used, yes. Some providers have customers in different > > > RIR service regions. Some organisations have address space registered > > > in different RIR service regions. It's impossible to avoid in many > > > situations. > > > > > > What's important right now is to close off the option to create new > > > unqualified as-set names, and to move the existing qualified non-RIPE > > > ASxxxx:as-set objects from source: RIPE to source: RIPE-NONAUTH. > > > > > > Denis was correct that this was a bug during the implementation of > NWI-5 > > > (not ripe-731 which I mistakenly quoted). > > > > > > After that, we can afford to spend a bit of time looking at potential > > > clean-up options. There are 1590 empty as-set objects. 700 of these > > > haven't been updated in the last 5 years, and some going back 20 years. > > > > > > I wouldn't lose too much sleep about deleting empty as-sets. Contact > > > people, set a timeout, and then delete. Worst case, people can > > > reference new, qualified as-sets. > > > > > > 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 >
-- 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
