[routing-wg] Analysis tool for RIPE Proposal 2018-06

This almost looks like a typo, I can’t find any historical information tying this route to Akamai going back to at least 2009.

It would be nice if this object could go away :-)

- Jared


> On Mar 6, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Jay Borkenhagen <jayb at braeburn.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I support this clean-up of RIPE-NONAUTH IRR using information
> published in the RPKI.  
> 
> AT&T has been allocated 99.112.0.0/12, and we have not sub-allocated
> 99.122.224.0/21 to Akamai, CW-EUROPE-GSOC, AS1273, or anyone.  Folks
> are encouraged to use the ROA we have published for 99.112.0.0/12
> authorizing origination in our as7018 in all ways that make sense,
> including removing bogus / obsolete route objects from the IRR.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 						Jay B.
> 
> 
> On 06-March-2019, Job Snijders writes:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> I wrote a small tool to help understand the effects if RIPE Policy
>> Proposal 2018-06 is accepted by the community. This is the "Let's use
>> RPKI ROAs to clean up the non-authoritative RIPE-NONAUTH IRR
>> source!"-proposal (source: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06).
>> The tool can also be used by RIPE NCC staff to validate their
>> implementation or help their impact analysis.
>> 
>> Quick reminder: this proposal does *not* impact any RIPE Managed space,
>> this does *not* impact IP space for which no RPKI ROAs have or can be
>> created, and it does *not* impact route objects where the route object
>> and the RPKI ROA are match each other.
>> 
>> Currently there are 793 IRR "route:" objects and 17 "route6:" objects
>> that conflict with published RPKI ROAs. Out of those ~ 800, roughly 33
>> prefixes are visible in the BGP DFZ as exact matches between what is
>> registered in RIPE-NONAUTH and in BGP (note: this means these 33
>> announcements are "RPKI Invalid", and the likes of Cloudflare / AT&T
>> probably aren't accepting those announcements anyway)...
>> 
>> You can install the tool through 'pip3 install ripe-proposal-2018-06', or
>> download the source from https://github.com/job/ripe-proposal-2018-06
>> 
>> Usage example:
>> 
>>    $ ripe-proposal-2018-06 -a 7018
>>    Downloading https://rpki.gin.ntt.net/api/export.json
>>    Downloading https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ripe-nonauth.db.route.gz
>> 
>>    INVALID! The 99.122.224.0/21AS1273 RIPE-NONAUTH route object has conflicts:
>> 
>>        route:          99.122.224.0/21
>>        descr:          route for customer Akamai International
>>        origin:         AS1273
>>        created:        2008-09-08T14:40:49Z
>>        last-modified:  2018-09-04T15:54:45Z
>>        source:         RIPE-NONAUTH
>>        mnt-by:         CW-EUROPE-GSOC
>> 
>>        Above non-authoritative IRR object is in conflict with this ROA:
>>            ROA: 99.112.0.0/12, MaxLength: 12, Origin AS7018 (ARIN)
>> 
>> Note that AT&T has no method of getting this erroneous "route:" object
>> removed, other than to beg & plead with maintainer 'CW-EUROPE-GSOC'.
>> 
>> We're working on an updated version of RIPE Policy Proposal 2018-06 to
>> incorporate feedback from the community, such as an attempt to send
>> notifications and a grace period before the object is actually removed.
>> 
>> All in all it appears that if this policy proposal is deployed *now*,
>> the operational impact is virtually non-existent; and after deploying
>> this the global community has an industry-standard way to get rid of
>> stale proxy route registrations. With every published ROA the
>> "RIPE-NONAUTH" source becomes cleaner!
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Job