[db-wg] Further cleanup (was: RIPE NONAUTH route(6) objects using unregistered space cleanup - deployment *today*)

Hi Job,

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 15:08, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Working Group,
> 
> I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the
> totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
>> Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
>> the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved,
>> by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?
> 
> Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following 
> 
>    0                       # RFC 7607
>    23456                   # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS
>    64496..64511            # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
>    64512..65534            # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
>    65535                   # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN
>    65536..65551            # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
>    65552..131071           # RFC IANA reserved ASNs
>    4200000000..4294967294  # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
>    4294967295 		    # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN
> 
> seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment similar
> restrictions apply.
> 

Currently it is not possible to create a route(6) in the RIPE database with a 'reserved' AS number according to:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml

which includes 0,64496-131071,4200000000-4294967295

So 23456 is *not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees.

Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC