[db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Linder
erik.linder at gmail.com
Wed May 12 10:00:52 CEST 2021
is there a need for the ROA object to be identical in length to the route object? take 41.213.128.0/21 is a RIPE-NOAUTH route object and there is a valid ROA from AFRINIC for 41.213.128.0/17 max length 24 regards erik On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 11:46, Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net> wrote: > Hi Erik, > > > On 12 May 2021, at 09:27, Erik Linder <erik.linder at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The proposed cleanup is to only remove route(6) objects from > RIPE-NONAUTH which are not registered in *any* region: > > too bad, because I have a use case where I have a couple of route > objects in RIPE-NOAUTH but they are maintained by an old peering partner > which seems to have no wish to help me remove those objects which are legit > AFRINIC route objects. thus although I want to clean them, I can't. > > > > regards > > Erik > > There is a RIPE policy to cleanup conflicting route(6) objects in the > NONAUTH database: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-731 > > If you can create a ROA for the Afrinic prefix, a cleanup job will delete > any conflicting route(6) for you. > > Regards > Ed > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20210512/8b11a5e4/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Route objects for space administered by other RIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]