2014-11-25 13:00 GMT+02:00 <db-wg-request@ripe.net>:

Send db-wg mailing list submissions to
        db-wg@ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        db-wg-request@ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        db-wg-owner@ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of db-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: source: field for non RIPE address space (Job Snijders)
   2. Re: source: field for non RIPE address space (Job Snijders)
   3. Re: source: field for non RIPE address space (Randy Bush)
   4. Re: source: field for non RIPE address space (Randy Bush)
   5. Re: source: field for non RIPE address space (Job Snijders)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:16:54 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
To: Edward Shryane <eshryane@ripe.net>
Cc: Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net>, db-wg@ripe.net,  Nigel Titley
        <nigel@titley.com>
Message-ID: <20141124181654.GD44694@Vurt.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:41:16PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 03:03:49PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote:
> > I checked all route objects in the RIPE database, against the
> > delegated stats file for each region, and found which region the
> > (IPv4) address space belongs in.
> >
> > RIPE: 185,537
> > ARIN: 7,609
> > AFRINIC: 37,683
> > LACNIC: 1,930
> > APNIC: 2,004

Edward was kind enough to provide me with data dumps. I've run some
simple seek & count code, comparing the route objects (and their real
source) and the BGP table:

Correct route object, prefix-length, origin which are visible in BGP DFZ:
               IPv6     IPv4
    AFRINIC:    72      7146
    APNIC:      17       498
    ARIN:      264      4030
    LACNIC:     11      1448
    OTHER:       2       NaN
    RIPE:     6430    106081

Registered route objects which are NOT visible in BGP DFZ:
               IPv6    IPv4
    AFRINIC:     95   31018
    APNIC:        9     515
    ARIN:       168    2694
    LACNIC:      15     448
    OTHER:        0     NaN
    RIPE:      3038   78393

Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ:
               IPv6    IPv4
    AFRINIC:      7     582
    APNIC:        3    1002
    ARIN:        84    1085
    LACNIC:       0      35
    OTHER:       45     NaN
    RIPE:       357   10896

OK, so what does this mean?!

If we proceed with our plan to set 'source: RIPE-NONAUTH' for objects,
the prefixes from the first category (correct length & origin & visible)
might be impacted. Roughly 13k prefixes, of which ARIN & AFRINIC are the
largest. The real number might be lower as it is quite possible that
route objects for those 13k prefixes exist in other registries as well.
Curiously enough running those 13122 prefixes through aggregate(1), the
set is shrunken down to only 3941 prefixes.

So, what's next? Please share your thoughts & insights.

Kind regards,

Jobi

ps. My data and crude scripts are available here:
    http://instituut.net/~job/correlate-route-objects-with-bgp-ripe/



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:34:34 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <20141124233434.GG44694@Vurt.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:28:55AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ:
>
> is this not legitimate in a make before break origin transfer?  of
> course, many will forget to clean old up afterward.

Yes, good remark.

I have not attempted to figure out why those route objects are there.

One could for instance take a wider time window for the BGP data (6
months?) and run the correlations to assess which are in transfer/mbb
and which potentially are stale garbage.

Kind regards,

Job



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:35:56 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <m2r3ws6ujn.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>> Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ:
>> is this not legitimate in a make before break origin transfer?  of
>> course, many will forget to clean old up afterward.
> I have not attempted to figure out why those route objects are there.

is there a second route: object for the same prefix which is correct?

randy



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 08:28:55 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
To: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <m2tx1o6uvc.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ:

is this not legitimate in a make before break origin transfer?  of
course, many will forget to clean old up afterward.

randy



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:46:38 +0100
From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>
Message-ID: <20141124234638.GH44694@Vurt.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:35:56AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ:
> >> is this not legitimate in a make before break origin transfer?  of
> >> course, many will forget to clean old up afterward.
> > I have not attempted to figure out why those route objects are there.
>
> is there a second route: object for the same prefix which is correct?

Quickly ran something for IPv4:

{'AFRINIC': 99,
'APNIC': 10,
'ARIN': 112,
'LACNIC': 1,
'RIPE': 6200}

This means there are 99 objects which fall within AfriNIC administrated
space which have an origin not seen in the DFZ, but a _correct_ route
object already exists.

Kind regards,

Job



End of db-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 12
*************************************