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] Bogon route object cleanup
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Reminder: RIPE Database Requirements Task Force – Draft Report Published
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Bogon route object cleanup
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Aleksi Suhonen
ripe-ml-2021 at ssd.axu.tm
Wed Oct 6 15:21:41 CEST 2021
Hi, On 3.9.2021 3.58, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: > It seems that we never really settled the question of route objects that make > reference to the following reserved IP blocks. These blocks have been reserved by IANA through IETF action, and thus they are completely outside the RIR framework. IANA maintains a registry of such address blocks at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml Personally I feel that IANA should come to an agreement with one of the RIRs that the globally routeable blocks in that list could be adopted by that RIR, and then we could even have RPKI for them. > 192.31.196.0/24 > 192.88.99.0/24 > > 2001::/32 2001:4:112::/48 is also one of these blocks. > 2002::/16 The following block, on the other hand, I think is an authentic bogon: > 2011:4188::/48 > I am in favor of including route objects that reference any of these > reserved blocks in the ongoing cleanup. My recollection is that Cynthia > Revstr�m also expressed support for including any and all such route > objects in the current ongoing route object cleanup. > Are there any objections at the present time to including such route objects > in the ongoing cleanup? AS112 is an existing thing, and its routes shouldn't be removed from the Internet. See www.as112.net for brief description. As for the others... People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The RFCs clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations should be allowed to function for the near future for backward compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route objects too. When it's clear that nobody is bothering to run the relay router services for these technologies anymore, the route objects can be removed. Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be affected by this change. Best Regards, -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Reminder: RIPE Database Requirements Task Force – Draft Report Published
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Bogon route object cleanup
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]