[db-wg] proposal: disallow creation of new non-hierarchically named AS-SET objects

Hi Nick

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 20:11, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>
> denis walker via db-wg wrote on 22/11/2022 19:00:
> > Any thoughts on this? There are 2128 AUT-NUM objects with source
> > RIPE-NONAUTH. Do we want these to be able to authorise the creation of
> > hierarchical AS-SET objects when we don't know who maintains the
> > AUT-NUM objects?
>
> I don't see a particular reason to prevent holders of existing NON-AUTH
> ASNs from defining a hierarchical AS-SET object associated with their
> ASN.  The as-set object would be no more or less authoritative than the
> aut-num object.

Then another option could be to only allow such objects to also have
the source NON-AUTH

>
> > Another suggestion. There are 1361 short named AS-SET objects that
> > don't have any 'members' or 'mbrs-by-ref' attributes. In other words
> > they are operationally empty objects. (This includes AS-AMAZON.) We
> > could introduce an automated cleanup process similar to the way we
> > remove unreferenced PERSON and ROLE objects. If an AS-SET object
> > remains operationally empty for 90 days it will be automatically
> > deleted. This would include hierarchical objects. The hierarchical
> > objects can easily be recreated by the ASN maintainers at any time if
> > they are needed later. This gets around the problem of who has the
> > authority to remove rogue objects. It becomes a database cleanup
> > operation. Any thoughts?
>
> Careful with this, e.g. AS-NULL. There are some situations where
> referencing an empty set can be useful in RPSL.

We have a mechanism to protect specified PERSON and ROLE objects from
automatic deletion. We could also protect AS-NULL from such automatic
deletion.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
> Nick
>