Good news everyone, most of the work was already done! :-) On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:08:18PM +0000, Job Snijders via db-wg wrote:
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved, by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?
Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following
0 # RFC 7607 23456 # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS 64496..64511 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs 64512..65534 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs 65535 # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN 65536..65551 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs 65552..131071 # RFC IANA reserved ASNs 4200000000..4294967294 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs 4294967295 # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN
seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment similar restrictions apply.
The RIPE database already blocks creation of route/route6 objects for almost all private ASNs, see source code here: https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/blob/9e40c79dfb3b00f63471126e17d9a70c76ea3... Which results in simple error message: http://chloe.sobornost.net/~job/cant_create_private.png The only ASN missing from the 'whois.reserved.as.numbers' list, compared to the list I provided is '23456'. I suspect that adding '23456' to the list indeed is not controversial. Kind regards, Job