[db-wg] blocking '23456' as value for the origin attribubte in route/route6 objects?

Good news everyone, most of the work was already done! :-)

On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:08:18PM +0000, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
> > Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
> > the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved,
> > by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?
> 
> Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following 
> 
>     0                       # RFC 7607
>     23456                   # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS
>     64496..64511            # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
>     64512..65534            # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
>     65535                   # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN
>     65536..65551            # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
>     65552..131071           # RFC IANA reserved ASNs
>     4200000000..4294967294  # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
>     4294967295              # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN
> 
> seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment similar
> restrictions apply.

The RIPE database already blocks creation of route/route6 objects for
almost all private ASNs, see source code here:
https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/9e40c79dfb3b00f63471126e17d9a70c76ea3046/whois-commons/src/test/resources/whois.properties#L70

Which results in simple error message:
http://chloe.sobornost.net/~job/cant_create_private.png

The only ASN missing from the 'whois.reserved.as.numbers' list, compared
to the list I provided is '23456'.

I suspect that adding '23456' to the list indeed is not controversial.

Kind regards,

Job