[db-wg] remove bogon prefixes in the RIPE IRR NON-AUTH DB?

I do also support this suggestion.

Kind regards,
Cynthia

On 2018-10-05 21:49, Elvis Daniel Velea via db-wg wrote:
> +1
>
> /elvis
>
> Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.
>
>> On Oct 5, 2018, at 12:47, Nick Hilliard via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yes please.  This is a very sensible thing to do.  Bogons do not belong in a public IRR.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> Job Snijders via db-wg wrote on 04/09/2018 11:46:
>>> Dear WG,
>>> I'd like to raise the issue of bogon prefixes in the RIPE IRR, and ask
>>> RIPE NCC to remove all "bogon" route object registrations from the
>>> "RIPE-NONAUTH" IRR database.
>>> Today I was made aware of this example:
>>>    $ whois -h whois.ripe.net -- "-Troute6 2001:db8::/32" | egrep -v "%|^$"
>>>    route6:         2001:db8::/32
>>>    origin:         AS25375
>>>    descr:          AS25375
>>>    mnt-by:         ch-stafag-1-mnt
>>>    mnt-by:         LEUNET-SECURITY-MNT
>>>    created:        2018-08-25T15:27:50Z
>>>    last-modified:  2018-08-25T15:27:50Z
>>>    source:         RIPE
>>> I'd consider the following prefixes, and any more-specifics of these to
>>> be bogons prefixes:
>>>     0.0.0.0/8       # RFC 1122 'this' network
>>>     10.0.0.0/8      # RFC 1918 private space
>>>     100.64.0.0/10   # RFC 6598 Carrier grade nat space
>>>     127.0.0.0/8     # RFC 1122 localhost
>>>     169.254.0.0/16  # RFC 3927 link local
>>>     172.16.0.0/12   # RFC 1918 private space
>>>     192.0.2.0/24    # RFC 5737 TEST-NET-1
>>>     192.168.0.0/16  # RFC 1918 private space
>>>     198.18.0.0/15   # RFC 2544 benchmarking
>>>     198.51.100.0/24 # RFC 5737 TEST-NET-2
>>>     203.0.113.0/24  # RFC 5737 TEST-NET-3
>>>     224.0.0.0/4     # Multicast
>>>     240.0.0.0/4     # Reserved
>>>     ::/8            # RFC 4291 IPv4-compatible, loopback, et al
>>>     0100::/64       # RFC 6666 Discard-Only
>>>     2001:2::/48     # RFC 5180 BMWG
>>>     2001:10::/28    # RFC 4843 ORCHID
>>>     2001:db8::/32   # RFC 3849 documentation
>>>     3ffe::/16       # RFC 3701 old 6bone
>>>     fc00::/7        # RFC 4193 unique local unicast
>>>     fe80::/10       # RFC 4291 link local unicast
>>>     fec0::/10       # RFC 3879 old site local unicast
>>>     ff00::/8        # RFC 4291 multicast
>>> Any route/route6 objects covered by the above prefixes should be deleted
>>> from the database, and the software should be extended in such a way
>>> that nobody can register new route/route6 objects covered by the above
>>> list.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Job