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 14:53:33 CEST 2019

Hi Jens,

> On 28 May 2019, at 13:59, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH <jo at opteamax.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
>> 
>> 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).
> 
> The attributes of the object I observed, say it was created in 2011 and
> modified in 2017.
> 

In this case, for the holes: attribute value 176.67.226.0/21, the prefix doesn't match the prefix length.

Validation for this scenario was added after the object was modified in early 2017 (and existing data was not cleaned up when the validation was added).

Regards
Ed

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 ]