Re: [routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for validation or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals

[Cosmin Lupu]

Have a look on the following proposal which is now in discussion phase

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06



On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:16 AM Delacruz, Anthony B <
anthony.delac...@centurylink.com> wrote:

> Just referring to NONAUTH. I recycle and clean up 300K+ IP's every year
> and part of that is clearing reverse, blacklist, and IRR entries. RIPE has
> been an annoyance of mine for years with requests to get stale IRR pulled
> on items we own being a fight but nowhere near as bad as ALTDB that never
> responds to asks. The L3 now CTL IRR has been owned and managed all this
> time and easy to get updates. Reach out to the NOC or send in an ask to
> ipadmin and it'll be checked and corrected. All of them suffer even ours
> suffer from the litter left behind and we have efforts to clear that out,
> but more just comes in daily. My main concern and ask here is getting the
> NCC to take action and clear out items I know are wrong on space I own and
> can prove I own in other ways than just RPKI.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 6:20 PM
> To: Delacruz, Anthony B
> Cc: routing-wg@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for
> validation or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Delacruz, Anthony B
>  wrote:
> >
> > I’m very appreciative for the efforts here to clean out the IRR. I am a
> major resource holder with IP’s and ASN’s from all the RIR and we also run
> an IRR. I am often frustrated that when I open a ticket with the NCC and
> even place an entry in whois on space I own that is clearly listed wrong in
> RIPE-NONAUTH IRR that it is a multi week struggle to get entries removed
> and they have me chase the contact that put in the entry which is often not
> responsive.
> >
> > Since not all of my space right now is easily taken care of using RPKI
> for this, I would very much like to suggest additional methods be available
> for the NCC to consider a valid request for removal. Other IRR’s I work
> with we usually send the request from the MNT or POC that is on the
> account/orgid/lir listed with the RIR and in some cases I go as far as to
> set whois on the blocks with various messages like “please clear, IRR BAD,
> Hijacked, Recovered Space” and several other messages to make it understood
> the range has some reason we don’t want an IRR entry to be showing for it.
> Many of the dozen other IRR are quick and a pleasure to work with but the
> NCC is not ever easy or prompt on the cases I have put in.
> > This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any
> attachments.
>
> Is this just with RIPE-NONAUTH, or in the regular source: RIPE objects?
>
> RIPE-NONAUTH is a bit of a wild-west and I suspect most people would be
> best served if they stopped building filters with that set unless their
> customers specifically requested it.
>
> I’ll also make note that the Level3 (now CTL?) IRR has not had an owner
> for many years and people have had a hard time communicating about issues
> with objects there.  I understand why cleanup is hard or unpopular (it’s
> like picking up litter, there’s little reward or notice that the trash was
> taken away).
>
> - Jared
>
>
>
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
> by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any
> attachments.
>

Re: [routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for validation or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals

[Delacruz, Anthony B]

Just referring to NONAUTH. I recycle and clean up 300K+ IP's every year and 
part of that is clearing reverse, blacklist, and IRR entries. RIPE has been an 
annoyance of mine for years with requests to get stale IRR pulled on items we 
own being a fight but nowhere near as bad as ALTDB that never responds to asks. 
The L3 now CTL IRR has been owned and managed all this time and easy to get 
updates. Reach out to the NOC or send in an ask to ipadmin and it'll be checked 
and corrected. All of them suffer even ours suffer from the litter left behind 
and we have efforts to clear that out, but more just comes in daily. My main 
concern and ask here is getting the NCC to take action and clear out items I 
know are wrong on space I own and can prove I own in other ways than just RPKI.

-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 6:20 PM
To: Delacruz, Anthony B
Cc: routing-wg@ripe.net
Subject: Re: [routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for validation 
or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals



> On May 28, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Delacruz, Anthony B 
>  wrote:
>
> I’m very appreciative for the efforts here to clean out the IRR. I am a major 
> resource holder with IP’s and ASN’s from all the RIR and we also run an IRR. 
> I am often frustrated that when I open a ticket with the NCC and even place 
> an entry in whois on space I own that is clearly listed wrong in RIPE-NONAUTH 
> IRR that it is a multi week struggle to get entries removed and they have me 
> chase the contact that put in the entry which is often not responsive.
>
> Since not all of my space right now is easily taken care of using RPKI for 
> this, I would very much like to suggest additional methods be available for 
> the NCC to consider a valid request for removal. Other IRR’s I work with we 
> usually send the request from the MNT or POC that is on the account/orgid/lir 
> listed with the RIR and in some cases I go as far as to set whois on the 
> blocks with various messages like “please clear, IRR BAD, Hijacked, Recovered 
> Space” and several other messages to make it understood the range has some 
> reason we don’t want an IRR entry to be showing for it. Many of the dozen 
> other IRR are quick and a pleasure to work with but the NCC is not ever easy 
> or prompt on the cases I have put in.
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain 
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this 
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.

Is this just with RIPE-NONAUTH, or in the regular source: RIPE objects?

RIPE-NONAUTH is a bit of a wild-west and I suspect most people would be best 
served if they stopped building filters with that set unless their customers 
specifically requested it.

I’ll also make note that the Level3 (now CTL?) IRR has not had an owner for 
many years and people have had a hard time communicating about issues with 
objects there.  I understand why cleanup is hard or unpopular (it’s like 
picking up litter, there’s little reward or notice that the trash was taken 
away).

- Jared



This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential 
or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the communication and any attachments.

Re: [routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for validation or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals

[Jared Mauch]

> On May 28, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Delacruz, Anthony B 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’m very appreciative for the efforts here to clean out the IRR. I am a major 
> resource holder with IP’s and ASN’s from all the RIR and we also run an IRR. 
> I am often frustrated that when I open a ticket with the NCC and even place 
> an entry in whois on space I own that is clearly listed wrong in RIPE-NONAUTH 
> IRR that it is a multi week struggle to get entries removed and they have me 
> chase the contact that put in the entry which is often not responsive.
>  
> Since not all of my space right now is easily taken care of using RPKI for 
> this, I would very much like to suggest additional methods be available for 
> the NCC to consider a valid request for removal. Other IRR’s I work with we 
> usually send the request from the MNT or POC that is on the account/orgid/lir 
> listed with the RIR and in some cases I go as far as to set whois on the 
> blocks with various messages like “please clear, IRR BAD, Hijacked, Recovered 
> Space” and several other messages to make it understood the range has some 
> reason we don’t want an IRR entry to be showing for it. Many of the dozen 
> other IRR are quick and a pleasure to work with but the NCC is not ever easy 
> or prompt on the cases I have put in.
> This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain 
> confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this 
> communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by 
> reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.

Is this just with RIPE-NONAUTH, or in the regular source: RIPE objects?

RIPE-NONAUTH is a bit of a wild-west and I suspect most people would be best 
served if they stopped building filters with that set unless their customers 
specifically requested it.

I’ll also make note that the Level3 (now CTL?) IRR has not had an owner for 
many years and people have had a hard time communicating about issues with 
objects there.  I understand why cleanup is hard or unpopular (it’s like 
picking up litter, there’s little reward or notice that the trash was taken 
away).

- Jared

[routing-wg] 2018-06 Can we have additional methods for validation or have the NCC not be so obstinate on doing removals

[Delacruz, Anthony B]

I'm very appreciative for the efforts here to clean out the IRR. I am a major 
resource holder with IP's and ASN's from all the RIR and we also run an IRR. I 
am often frustrated that when I open a ticket with the NCC and even place an 
entry in whois on space I own that is clearly listed wrong in RIPE-NONAUTH IRR 
that it is a multi week struggle to get entries removed and they have me chase 
the contact that put in the entry which is often not responsive.

Since not all of my space right now is easily taken care of using RPKI for 
this, I would very much like to suggest additional methods be available for the 
NCC to consider a valid request for removal. Other IRR's I work with we usually 
send the request from the MNT or POC that is on the account/orgid/lir listed 
with the RIR and in some cases I go as far as to set whois on the blocks with 
various messages like "please clear, IRR BAD, Hijacked, Recovered Space" and 
several other messages to make it understood the range has some reason we don't 
want an IRR entry to be showing for it. Many of the dozen other IRR are quick 
and a pleasure to work with but the NCC is not ever easy or prompt on the cases 
I have put in.
This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential 
or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly 
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in 
error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 
copies of the communication and any attachments.

Re: [routing-wg] Fw: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

[Ben Maddison via routing-wg]

None at all that I have ever come across. Support depreciation.

Cheers,

Ben

Get Outlook for Android


From: routing-wg  on behalf of ripedenis--- via 
routing-wg 
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 3:13:03 PM
To: RIPE Routing Working Group
Subject: [routing-wg] Fw: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

Colleagues

We have had a suggestion (with some support) on the DB-WG mailing list about 
deprecating the "holes:" attribute in ROUTE(6) objects. Perhaps the Routing WG 
could consider if this attribute has any value in the RIPE Database.

cheers
denis

co-chair DB-WG

- Forwarded message -
From: Nick Hilliard via db-wg 
To: Edward Shryane 
Cc: "db...@ripe.net" 
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2019, 13:30:30 CEST
Subject: Re: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2019 12:12:

> Unfortunately, no cleanup was done when this rule was implemented,
> but in recent times we try to do this. I will also contact the
> maintainers of these route objects and ask them to fix the holes
> attribute(s).

I wonder if this key should be formally deprecated.  It's used for 643
out of 302354 route: objects and 40 out of 28803 route6: objects, i.e.
~0.2% and 0.1% respectively. The complexity associated with handling it
is substantial and most tools simply ignore it.

Nick

[routing-wg] Fw: [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking

[ripedenis--- via routing-wg]

 Colleagues
We have had a suggestion (with some support) on the DB-WG mailing list about 
deprecating the "holes:" attribute in ROUTE(6) objects. Perhaps the Routing WG 
could consider if this attribute has any value in the RIPE Database.
cheersdenis
co-chair DB-WG
   - Forwarded message - From: Nick Hilliard via db-wg 
To: Edward Shryane Cc: "db...@ripe.net" 
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2019, 13:30:30 CESTSubject: Re: [db-wg] 
Suggestion further validity-checking
 Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote on 28/05/2019 12:12:
> Unfortunately, no cleanup was done when this rule was implemented,
> but in recent times we try to do this. I will also contact the
> maintainers of these route objects and ask them to fix the holes
> attribute(s).
I wonder if this key should be formally deprecated.  It's used for 643 
out of 302354 route: objects and 40 out of 28803 route6: objects, i.e. 
~0.2% and 0.1% respectively. The complexity associated with handling it 
is substantial and most tools simply ignore it.

Nick