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/db-wg@ripe.net/
[db-wg] Removal of bogon route objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Removal of bogon route objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Removal of bogon route objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Mon Jun 14 22:21:10 CEST 2021
In message <46AAC114-7B46-4D17-A024-56E82872797C at ripe.net>, Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net> wrote: >> (It is a curious oddity that the NRO stats file is apparently not quite a >> perfect representation of the sum total of those 5 files.) > >I'm using the RIR delegated stats as they are already in use by Whois... As of now, I am also. (The NRO status file contains *many* divergences from the sum of the 5 RIR status files. IT is apparent that some of these, at least, are caused by "version skew", i.e. the NRO stats file is apparently not as fresh as what can be gotten from the 5 RIRs directly.) >> It seems quite entirely half fast for you/NCC to be doing all of this >> work to eliminate JUST the bogus route objects that reference bogon >> IP address space, while leaving alone all of the route objects that >> refer to bogon ASNs. >> >> I mean, is it just me, or isn't that obvious? > >We can extend the cleanup job to also validate the origin AS, if the >rules are clear and if the DB-WG agrees. Wouldn't it make your task easier if you were to tackle both of these sets of bogus route objects at the same time, rather than processing each set sequentially? I'm just saying that I think it would be Good to move forward with deleting both sets of bogus route objects ASAP. (I mean it's all garbage anyway, and I really doubt that anyone is going to miss any of this gunk.) >Thanks, that was my question, should we validate that *either* the IP or >AS is unregistered, or *both* IP and AS are unregistered (and you >indicated *either*). I have made my own personal preference clear. What do others on the list think? Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Removal of bogon route objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Removal of bogon route objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]