[db-wg] Bogon cleanup -- Current anomalies

Hi,

> (To Ronald and the list) Should we add other sources of bogon prefixes
(e.g. RFC 3068) to the implementation?

With regards to that specific prefix I feel like that should absolutely be
added given that it was also deprecated and terminated in the IANA
registry in 2015.

With regards to other bogons, I feel like at least for the prefixes that
are listed as not globally reachable in the "IPv4 Special-Purpose Address
Registry"[1].

I have not evaluated this in great detail though and this is just my
initial thoughts.

Are there any route objects that would be impacted by this change outside
of 192.88.99.0/24?
If the answer is no, then I would suggest that all non-globally reachable
prefixes listed in the special-purpose registry be added to the bogon
cleanup.

P.S. Ronald, you probably want to at least exclude this from your script "
192.31.196.0/24 112 2018-09-04". :)

[1]:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml

-Cynthia

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 10:12 PM Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net>
wrote:

> Hi Ronald,
>
> > On 20 Jul 2021, at 21:03, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > According to information given to me by Edward Shryane <
> eshryane at ripe.net>,
> > the cleanup of bogon route objects which made reference to bogon IP
> > address space should have been completed the night before last.
> >
>
> To be clear (apologies it was not), the outstanding route objects were
> deleted *last* night, not the night before last.
>
> The cleanup job ran first on the morning of 30th June, the maintainers
> were emailed a week later on 6th July, and the route(6) objects were
> deleted two weeks after that (last night).
>
> In summary, the job deleted 863 route(6) objects in RIPE-NONAUTH, except
> for 7 which were excluded.
>
> We received two tickets from maintainers, asking to exclude those 7
> route(6) objects from the cleanup, and we are currently in discussion with
> them.
>
> The latest split files in https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ were
> generated this morning around 05:50 UTC so do not contain the deleted
> route(6) objects.
>
> > My latest analysis suggests that a few such route objects escaped the
> > net and are still present within the NONAUTH data base.  These route
> > objects are summarized below.  I'd appreciate it if others would take a
> > look at these and tell me if they think that these route objects should
> > or should not be present within the data base.
> >
>
> I will check why the routes you listed were not scheduled for deletion.
>
> > Note that both batches of bogon routes given below are really rather
> > curious due to the fact that nearly all of the routes have the exact
> > same last-modified date (2018-09-04)
>
> I think this is because the NWI-5 implementation that created the
> RIPE-NONAUTH database for out-of-region route, route6 and aut-num objects
> was run on September 4th, 2018, and many of those objects have not been
> modified since then.
>
> > and a great many of them refer
> > either to the 192.88.99.0/24 IPv4 block, which is apparently reserved
> > by RFC 3068, or to some IPv6 block which is *not* clearly related to
> > RFC 3068.  I am frankly not sure what to make of any of these, but I
> > do suspect that they are all invalid, because no RIR has assigned any
> > of the relevant IP space to any resource member.
>
> According to the implementation plan:
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2021-March/006876.html
>
> if these ranges are not marked as "available" or "reserved" in an RIR's
> delegated stats, then it will be skipped, and I didn't find 192.88.99.0/24
> in any RIR's delegated stats.
>
> (To Ronald and the list) Should we add other sources of bogon prefixes
> (e.g. RFC 3068) to the implementation?
>
> Regards
> Ed Shryane
> RIPE NCC
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20210722/4d87cf46/attachment.html>