[db-wg] Bogon route object cleanup
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Bogon route object cleanup
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Cosmetic changes to the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Habicht
geier at geier.ne.tz
Fri Sep 3 08:46:35 CEST 2021
Hi all, I'd like to suggest keeping the first listed one : 192.31.196.0/24 - AS112 and removing the 2nd (192.88.99.0/24) and the last (2011:4188::/48). probably "reserved" is not the right status for 192.31.196.0/24 [rfc7535] and https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml where the entry for 192.88.99.0/24 is much less favourable. https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml seems to suggest to keep 2001::/32 and 2002::/16 Regards, Frank On 03/09/2021 03:58, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote: > It seems that we never really settled the question of route objects that make > reference to the following reserved IP blocks. > > 192.31.196.0/24 > 192.88.99.0/24 > > 2001::/32 > 2002::/16 > 2011:4188::/48 > > Note that route objects referring to these IP blocks are *not* present in > the route registries of any RIR other than RIPE. > > I am in favor of including route objects that reference any of these > reserved blocks in the ongoing cleanup. My recollection is that Cynthia > Revstr�m also expressed support for including any and all such route > objects in the current ongoing route object cleanup. > > Are there any objections at the present time to including such route objects > in the ongoing cleanup? > > > Regards, > rfg >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Bogon route object cleanup
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Cosmetic changes to the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]