<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Solution proposal ================= I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style.</blockquote><div> </div><div>I support this solution </div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 at 18:41, Job Snijders via db-wg <<a href="mailto:db-wg@ripe.net">db-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear DB-WG, Speaking in individual capacity. In RFC 2622 section 5 specifies the naming convention for AS-SET objects. <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2622#section-5.1</a> There basically are two styles: * "short" (example: AS-SNIJDERS) * "hierarchical" (example: AS15562:AS-SNIJDERS) Problem statement ================= In recent weeks a number of hypergiant cloud providers have faced the thorny effects of adversarial AS-SET object naming collisions between IRR databases. An example of this phenomenon is the existence of AS-AMAZON in both RADB and RIPE. According to <a href="https://www.peeringdb.com/net/1418" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.peeringdb.com/net/1418</a> the RADB copy of the object is the the correct one and populated with a number of members entries. The RIPE one is empty, and not under control of Amazon. The existence of the AS-AMAZON object in the RIPE database might cause some operators to inadvertently apply empty prefix-filters to EBGP sessions which in turn causes various problems. It seems Amazon has no recourse to get the AS-AMAZON object removed from the RIPE database; because the existence of that object in the RIPE database does not violate any policies (as far as I know). But perhaps, going forward, this community can do a little bit more to help prevent similar situations from happening to others. Solution proposal ================= I think the solution is to - GOING FORWARD - disallow creation of new AS-SET objects which follow the 'short' naming style. The advantage of hierarchical naming is that the existing authorization rules as applied by the RIPE Whois Server database engine do a decent job of protecting/separating namespaces. 'Grandfathering' existing short-named objects ensures that implementation of this solution proposal causes minimal (if any) disruption to existing workflows. The RIPE database engine blocking creation of short-named AS-SETs might help nudge the industry towards making hierarchical naming the norm. Related work ============ Related work throughout the registry industry: IRRd version 4 forces new AS-SET objects to be structured hierarchically: <a href="https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/408" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd/issues/408</a> Kind regards, Job -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg</a> </blockquote></div>