Thanks for the input Cynthia. As you are one of the few people who regularly comment on DB issues at the moment, maybe you could take a look at the request for feedback from the DB Task Force recently. Any comments would be appreciated, who knows it may even start a discussion :)
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 13:03, Cynthia Revström <m...@cynthia.re> wrote: > > imo an NWI seems unnecessary unless we want it for purposes of referencing > back to in the future. > > -Cynthia > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 04:02 denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Colleagues >> >> How do you want to proceed with this suggestion? Do we have support >> for deleting these ROUTE(6) objects for deregistered space and where >> the objects were created before registration? Does anyone have any >> objections to this as an ongoing cleanup? >> >> Do we even need an NWI or can we just ask the NCC to go ahead with it? >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB-WG >> >> On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 15:07, Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear colleagues, >> > >> > In response to the recent discussion on "196.52.0.0/14 revoked, cleanup >> > efforts needed", I'd like to propose a regular automated cleanup of >> > route(6) objects in the RIPE-NONAUTH database using unregistered space. >> > >> > Regards >> > Ed Shryane >> > RIPE NCC >> > >> > >> > >> > Problem Definition >> > ------------------ >> > When an RIR deregisters IPv4/IPv6 address space, any route(6) objects in >> > the RIPE-NONAUTH database using that address space are not cleaned up >> > (deleted). >> > >> > >> > Solution Definition >> > ------------------- >> > Once a day, compare route(6) IPv4/IPv6 prefixes in the RIPE-NONAUTH >> > database against the combined delegated stats from all RIRs. >> > >> > Only route(6) prefixes that are "allocated" or "assigned" in any RIRs >> > delegated stats should remain in the RIPE NONAUTH database. If a prefix is >> > "available" or "reserved" then it is considered to be unregistered, and >> > any associated route(6) objects will be eligible for deletion. >> > >> > If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also >> > considered to be unregistered. >> > >> > If a prefix is not listed in any RIRs delegated stats, that prefix is >> > skipped. >> > >> > The origin AS status is not considered, only the IPv4/IPv6 prefix. >> > >> > If a newly unregistered prefix is discovered, first allow a grace period >> > of 1 week. This allows time for mistakes in the delegated stats to be >> > corrected. >> > >> > After 1 week, contact the route(6) maintainer(s) to notify them that the >> > route(6) object will be deleted. >> > >> > After a further 2 weeks, delete the route(6) object. >> > >> > A maintainer can request the RIPE NCC to exclude a route(6) prefix from >> > deletion (for example, the deregistration of the prefix is being >> > disputed). For any excluded prefixes, any associated route(6) objects will >> > not be deleted. >> > >> > >> > Impact Analysis >> > ------------------ >> > There are approximately 738 routes (out of 56,230) in the RIPE-NONAUTH >> > database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved" in an RIRs >> > delegated stats, which will be eligible for deletion. >> > >> > There are approximately 94 route6's (out of 1,564) in the RIPE-NONAUTH >> > database using a prefix with status "available" or "reserved", so also >> > eligible for deletion. >> > >> > There are approximately 64 routes and 37 route6's with a prefix not listed >> > in any RIR's delegated stats. These will not be affected. >> > >> > When this cleanup is implemented, the backlog of route(6) objects eligible >> > for deletion will be processed at the same time, leading to a large amount >> > of emails to affected maintainers. Once this backlog is processed, the >> > number of route(6) objects affected is expected to be low. >> > >> > >> > >>
