This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Edward Shryane
eshryane at ripe.net
Tue May 28 13:12:31 CEST 2019
Hi Jens, > On 28 May 2019, at 12:07, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear DB-WG, > > I am newly subscribed to this mailing-list although I am already active > in RIPE-community for quite some time. Some of you might know me in person. > > To be honest, I am not sure if this is the right place to send my mail > to and if it's not I'd be happy to be told who to address better. > Seems to be very relevant > For debugging our prefix-list-generator I increased verbosity of the > tool a little. As side-effekt I was also pointed to a route-object in > the ripe-database which contains a "hole"-definition where the netmask > doesn't match (X.Y.226.0/21) and actually is the same size as the entire > route-object. > I found a few of these ('invalid route range' for the holes attribute) in route objects: - holes attribute 195.214.188.0/23 on route 195.214.184.0/22AS8705 - holes attribute 193.99.144.0/23 on route 62.191.180.0/22AS702 - holes attribute 194.174.168.0/21 on route 62.191.180.0/22AS702 - holes attribute 193.99.144.0/23 on route 158.116.242.0/24AS702 - holes attribute 194.174.168.0/21 on route 158.116.242.0/24AS702 All route6 objects appear to be ok. > I already contacted the maintainer of that object but think it might be > a good idea to add a validity-check on adding new objects to prevent > this kind of faulty objects in the DB. > Whois does validate the holes attribute when creating or updating a route/route6 object, but these invalid values were added before this rule was added (in 2009 or earlier). 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). In general, if you are parsing RIPE database objects, be sure to check for invalid values. Thanks for your feedback. Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC > Best regards > -- > Jens Ott > Geschäftsführer > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo at opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Geschäftsführer: Jens Ott > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Suggestion further validity-checking
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]