<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Ronald,<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 12 May 2021, at 21:59, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <<a href="mailto:db-wg@ripe.net" class="">db-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">...</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I'd like to ask a more general question anyway, which is just this:<br class="">When the authority for some IP number resource is transferred from,<br class="">say, RIPE, to some other RIR, is there any good reason why any<br class="">associated route objects should not likewise travel to the new RIR<br class="">along with the IP block allocation itself? </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>During an inter-RIR transfer in the RIPE region, any associated routes are updated according to the user's wishes, in coordination with the RIPE NCC, to minimise any potential for disrupting networks.</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">And if there is no such<br class="">good reason, then could we please have a rule that says that a<br class="">transfer of an IP address block out of the RIPE region will be<br class="">followed also by a deletion, in short order, from the RIPE data base<br class="">of any directly relevant route object(s)?<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Deleting the route objects are done manually, we are investigating how to automate this (or at least email reminders so they are not left behind).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In April I found 2 routes in the RIPE database with an out-of-region prefix, and 33 routes in the RIPE-NONAUTH database with an in-region prefix. These were left over from Inter-RIR transfers since 2018. I notified the maintainers and moved the routes to the correct database.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">More broadly, it is parhaps a result of my overly-fastidious nature,<br class="">but I personally would be in favor of simply deleting all of the<br class="">remaining RIPE-NONAUTH route objects from the RIPE data base. </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>The NONAUTH routes date back to the time when the RIPE database served as a global IRR, and at the time it was decided to move them to a separate database rather than delete them altogether and risk disruption for users that depend on them.<br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>There is some more detail in the impact analysis for the original change: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-implementation" class="">https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-implementation</a><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div>And extensive discussion in the DB-WG archives from 2017 - 2018: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/" class="">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/</a><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">...<br class="">It seems that we are now in the era of RPKI and that everyone is being<br class="">generally encouraged to take routing security rather more seriously<br class="">these days, which is a profoundly Good Thing. Yet it appears that<br class="">when it comes to these RIPE-NONAUTH route records, RIPE is still, in<br class="">effect catering not just to the last generation of route registration<br class="">protocols, but also and even to the generation before that. At what<br class="">point in time does will all of this stuff be seen to be what it is,<br class="">i.e. antiquated and counterproductive?<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The intent of the 2018-06 policy proposal (now RIPE-731) was to clean up route(6) objects in RIPE-NONAUTH where they conflict with an RPKI ROA:</div><div class=""><a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06" class="">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards</div><div class="">Ed Shryane</div><div class="">RIPE NCC</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>