[db-wg] db-wg Digest, Vol 39, Issue 12

Tue Nov 25 18:36:27 CET 2014

помочь

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

> Send db-wg mailing list submissions to
>         db-wg at 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 at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         db-wg-owner at 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 at instituut.net>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
> To: Edward Shryane <eshryane at ripe.net>
> Cc: Kaveh Ranjbar <kranjbar at ripe.net>, db-wg at ripe.net,  Nigel Titley
>         <nigel at titley.com>
> Message-ID: <20141124181654.GD44694 at 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 at instituut.net>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
> To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <20141124233434.GG44694 at 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 at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
> To: Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <m2r3ws6ujn.wl%randy at 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 at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
> To: Job Snijders <job at instituut.net>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <m2tx1o6uvc.wl%randy at 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 at instituut.net>
> Subject: Re: [db-wg] source: field for non RIPE address space
> To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
> Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>
> Message-ID: <20141124234638.GH44694 at 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
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20141125/9935baad/attachment.html>