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] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Emil Palm
emil at netnod.se
Wed Nov 16 13:06:34 CET 2022
> > Solution proposal > ================= > I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new > AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style. I support this solution On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 18:41, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: > Dear DB-WG, > > Speaking in individual capacity. > > In RFC 2622 section 5 specifies the naming convention for AS-SET > objects. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1 > There basically are two styles: > > * "short" (example: AS-SNIJDERS) > * "hierarchical" (example: AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS) > > Problem statement > ================= > In recent weeks a number of hypergiant cloud providers have faced the > thorny effects of adversarial AS-SET object naming collisions between > IRR databases. > > An example of this phenomenon is the existence of AS-AMAZON in both RADB > and RIPE. According to https://www.peeringdb.com/net/1418 the RADB copy > of the object is the the correct one and populated with a number of > members entries. The RIPE one is empty, and not under control of Amazon. > > The existence of the AS-AMAZON object in the RIPE database might cause > some operators to inadvertently apply empty prefix-filters to EBGP > sessions which in turn causes various problems. > > It seems Amazon has no recourse to get the AS-AMAZON object removed from > the RIPE database; because the existence of that object in the RIPE > database does not violate any policies (as far as I know). But perhaps, > going forward, this community can do a little bit more to help prevent > similar situations from happening to others. > > Solution proposal > ================= > I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new > AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style. > > The advantage of hierarchical naming is that the existing authorization > rules as applied by the RIPE Whois Server database engine do a decent > job of protecting/separating namespaces. 'Grandfathering' existing > short-named objects ensures that implementation of this solution > proposal causes minimal (if any) disruption to existing workflows. > > The RIPE database engine blocking creation of short-named AS-SETs might > help nudge the industry towards making hierarchical naming the norm. > > Related work > ============ > Related work throughout the registry industry: IRRd version 4 forces new > AS-SET objects to be structured hierarchically: > https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/408 > > Kind regards, > > Job > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://mailman.ripe.net/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20221116/4b3e529b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]