[db-wg] Bogon cleanup -- Current anomalies

Hi Ronald,

I reviewed your list of routes as follows...

> On 20 Jul 2021, at 21:03, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> According to information given to me by Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net>,
> the cleanup of bogon route objects which made reference to bogon IP
> address space should have been completed the night before last.
> 
> My latest analysis suggests that a few such route objects escaped the
> net and are still present within the NONAUTH data base.  These route
> objects are summarized below.  I'd appreciate it if others would take a
> look at these and tell me if they think that these route objects should
> or should not be present within the data base.
> 
> Note that both batches of bogon routes given below are really rather
> curious due to the fact that nearly all of the routes have the exact
> same last-modified date (2018-09-04) and a great many of them refer
> either to the 192.88.99.0/24 IPv4 block, which is apparently reserved
> by RFC 3068, or to some IPv6 block which is *not* clearly related to
> RFC 3068.  I am frankly not sure what to make of any of these, but I
> do suspect that they are all invalid, because no RIR has assigned any
> of the relevant IP space to any resource member.
> 
> 
> NONAUTH / IPv4 routes (36):
> ---------------------------
> 
> 41.217.128.0/19 37034 2018-09-04

The /19 is skipped as part of the range doesn't appear in any RIR delegated stats.

	41.217.128.0/20 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC
	41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats.

> 41.217.144.0/20 37034 2018-09-04

	41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC
	41.217.152.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.156.0/22 does not appear in any RIR delegated stats.
> 
> 41.217.144.0/21 37034 2018-09-04

	41.217.144.0/22 is reserved in AFRINIC
	41.217.148.0/22 is allocated in AFRINIC

According to the implementation plan, "If a prefix is partially "available" or "reserved" then it is also considered to be unregistered."

So I think we should be deleting this route object (i.e. a bug), we will check the implementation.

> 41.242.84.0/22 37609 2018-09-04

	41.242.84.0/22 is excluded (in discussion)

> 170.56.0.0/16 15854 2018-09-04
> 170.56.0.0/16 702 2018-09-04

	170.56.0.0/16 is excluded (in discussion)

> 192.31.196.0/24 112 2018-09-04

	IETF reserved block (skipped for now)

> 192.88.99.0/24 1741 2018-09-04
...

	Deprecated IETF reserved block (skipped for now)

> 192.107.242.0/24 394784 2018-09-04

	deletion pending

> 204.144.127.0/24 40142 2018-09-04

	deletion pending

> 205.166.145.0/24 394784 2018-09-04

	deletion pending

> 
> NONAUTH / IPv6 routes (37):
> ---------------------------
> 
> 2001::/32 1101 2018-09-04
...

	reserved by IANA (teredo tunneling), skipped

> 2001:4:112::/48 112 2018-09-04

	reserved for AS112-v6, skipped

> 2002::/16 1101 2018-09-04
...
	reserved for 6to4, skipped


> 2011:4188::/48 12880 2018-09-04

	Typo? (as suggested by Gert on 13th June)


> 2c0f:f260::/32 36924 2018-09-04

	deletion pending


Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC