Bogon route object cleanup
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
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-specia... where the entry for 192.88.99.0/24 is much less favourable. https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-specia... 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
Hi, On 3.9.2021 3.58, 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.
These blocks have been reserved by IANA through IETF action, and thus they are completely outside the RIR framework. IANA maintains a registry of such address blocks at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-specia... Personally I feel that IANA should come to an agreement with one of the RIRs that the globally routeable blocks in that list could be adopted by that RIR, and then we could even have RPKI for them.
192.31.196.0/24 192.88.99.0/24
2001::/32
2001:4:112::/48 is also one of these blocks.
2002::/16
The following block, on the other hand, I think is an authentic bogon:
2011:4188::/48
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?
AS112 is an existing thing, and its routes shouldn't be removed from the Internet. See www.as112.net for brief description. As for the others... People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The RFCs clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations should be allowed to function for the near future for backward compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route objects too. When it's clear that nobody is bothering to run the relay router services for these technologies anymore, the route objects can be removed. Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be affected by this change. Best Regards, -- Aleksi Suhonen () ascii ribbon campaign /\ support plain text e-mail
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 6:22 AM Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
Personally I feel that IANA should come to an agreement with one of the RIRs that the globally routeable blocks in that list could be adopted by that RIR, and then we could even have RPKI for them.
Decisions of this nature are taken in an open and transparent way through consensus processes. Changes to resources reserved through IETF processes need to have their status updated through IETF processes. Incidentally, RFC 6491 was written to document how these resources should be treated in the RPKI. It's almost 10 years old. It might need an update. Regards, Leo
Hi, On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 04:21:41PM +0300, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote:
People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The RFCs clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations should be allowed to function for the near future for backward compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route objects too.
Now, how long is "near future"?
Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be affected by this change.
How much traffic to you see? We run a local 6to4 relay - not announced to "the Internet" - and I hardly see any traffic anymore. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I think the best option here would simply be to ask IANA (possibly through the NRO) how these prefixes should be handled as I don't think we are necessarily the correct people to answer these questions. -Cynthia On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 12:01 Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 04:21:41PM +0300, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote:
People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The RFCs clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations should be allowed to function for the near future for backward compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route objects too.
Now, how long is "near future"?
Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be affected by this change.
How much traffic to you see?
We run a local 6to4 relay - not announced to "the Internet" - and I hardly see any traffic anymore.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I also want to add that I don't personally see any real issue with keeping the route objects for a /24 that's either going to be used for a deprecated purpose or not used at all. This is in contrast to the potential issues that could arise from removing route objects that were used. I think the risks here are probably greater than any potential "reward". -Cynthia On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 15:17 Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
I think the best option here would simply be to ask IANA (possibly through the NRO) how these prefixes should be handled as I don't think we are necessarily the correct people to answer these questions.
-Cynthia
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 12:01 Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 04:21:41PM +0300, Aleksi Suhonen via db-wg wrote:
People keep repeating that 6to4 and Teredo are deprecated technologies, but they've obviously not read the deprecation RFCs themselves. The RFCs clearly state that while new implementations and installations of these tunneling methods are strongly discouraged, existing installations should be allowed to function for the near future for backward compatibility. So on these grounds I oppose removing those route objects too.
Now, how long is "near future"?
Yes, I run one instance of these services at AS29432, and would be affected by this change.
How much traffic to you see?
We run a local 6to4 relay - not announced to "the Internet" - and I hardly see any traffic anymore.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (6)
-
Aleksi Suhonen -
Cynthia Revström -
Frank Habicht -
Gert Doering -
Leo Vegoda -
Ronald F. Guilmette