<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear Nick,</p>
<p>Thanks for your email.<br>
</p>
<p>We are planning a clean-up of these ROUTE objects. As we wanted
to avoid deleting any legitimate objects of third parties, we
checked with AFRINIC and they have now confirmed that these
ROUTE(6) objects can be deleted.<br>
We also performed a check on all of the NONAUTH database for any
ROUTE(6) objects (using the prefix only), we found 81 routes (out
of 56,379) and 37 ROUTE6 (out of 1,568) that are not "allocated",
"assigned", "available", "reserved" in any region. We will now
inform the object holder and remove these objects.<br>
</p>
<p>We don’t think a policy is necessary for this work, but we
strongly believe we need an approach similar to NWI-5: "Inform the
object holder that these IRR object(s) refer to an unallocated
space. We will then delete them after a reasonable notification."
This gives people time to react in cases of incorrect
de-registration. We will initiate a discussion with the other RIRs
to find a joint approach on how we deal with similar incidents in
the future.</p>
<p>We have also looked into publishing a list of deregistered
resources and this will require some review internally if we plan
to go down that route. A more straightforward approach might be
for the RIRs to proactively highlight where we see objects in each
others IRRs. <br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Marco Schmidt<br>
Registry Services Assistant Manager<br>
RIPE NCC<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJPAtr1jbChkfnVYSRkrdj2=FVnDAM=ZNg8_KfHxthScU-D97g@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">From: <strong
class="gmail_sendername" dir="auto">Nick Hilliard via db-wg</strong>
<span dir="auto"><<a href="mailto:db-wg@ripe.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">db-wg@ripe.net</a>></span><br>
Date: Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 17:21<br>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] <a
href="http://196.52.0.0/14" moz-do-not-send="true">196.52.0.0/14</a>
revoked, cleanup efforts needed<br>
To: Niall O'Reilly <<a href="mailto:niall.oreilly@ucd.ie"
moz-do-not-send="true">niall.oreilly@ucd.ie</a>><br>
Cc: Database WG <<a href="mailto:db-wg@ripe.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">db-wg@ripe.net</a>>, Mirjam Kuehne
<<a href="mailto:chair@ripe.net" moz-do-not-send="true">chair@ripe.net</a>><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Niall O'Reilly wrote on 22/01/2021 09:55:<br>
> Creating a policy seems to me to be too heavy an approach
in this case.<br>
> <br>
> I would think that a simple request from the DB WG to the
NCC<br>
> should be enough.<br>
> <br>
> If a greater degree of formality were considered necessary,<br>
> a new NWI could be created.<br>
<br>
there are two issues here: the immediate one relates to removal
of these <br>
particular objects, but there's a longer term issue of whether
the NCC <br>
needs to be asked by the community to delete all objects which
are <br>
deregistered from the other LIRs on an ongoing basis. Honestly
I would <br>
have thought probably not because this sounds like the sort of
thing <br>
that falls into general garbage cleanup, i.e. normal stewardship
of <br>
resources.<br>
<br>
Could someone from the NCC clarify what the current situation
with this <br>
is? Is this something which is currently dealt with, and if
not, could <br>
it be?<br>
<br>
The reverse is also relevant. I.e. the RIPE NCC probably needs
to <br>
publish lists of resources which have been deregistered so that
other <br>
RIRs / IRRDBs can delete objects which refer to those resources
which <br>
date from before the date of deregistration.<br>
<br>
Nick<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>