Re: [apnic-talk] Private ASN Route Objects
Hi Ron,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 03:31:56AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message <YP5ZnNEIU3bKTzMa@tomh-laptop>, Tom Harrison
> <tomh@apnic.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 08:52:05PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>> I have been in communication with APNIC staff members about these
>>> specific bogon routes fairly continuously for over three weeks
>>> now, but the only thing I am being told is that these routes are
>>> being "discussed internally".
>>
>> Part of the issue here is that our system supports this
>> purposefully at the moment, due to wanting the route management
>> system to align where possible across both RPKI and Whois. We
>> aren't yet sure how to deal with this problem, though. One option
>> is to...
>
> You are talking about how to deal with this *general* problem over
> the LONG TERM. Although I am pleased to see APNIC taking such an
> interest in solving the "whole" problem over the long term, this is
> clearly of much greater interest to you APNIC staff folks than it is
> to me.
If we delete these objects without updating our system to prevent the
creation of futher objects like them, then we could end up in this
same situation again from time to time. It could also lead to user
confusion, if we were to contact them about changes they've validly
made via interfaces we've provided to them. We are interested in
avoiding these issues, so it makes sense to us to address both the
existing objects and the underlying mechanism at the same time.
> I am concerned with the short term fate of the specific bogon route
> objects that I have been telling you folks about for a good four
> weeks now, and from where I am sitting, there appears to have been
> little or no action on those specific problematic route objects in
> four weeks.
>
> I hope that you can understand why such an outcome is rather
> entirely less than satisfying.
We appreciate your concern here, but we are cautious about assuming
that we know every possible reason why an account holder might have
created a given route object. In these instances, we are contacting
the relevant address holders to confirm that they don't have any issue
with the objects being deleted. Sometimes the address holder does not
reply immediately, which is why resolving these issues might take
longer than anticipated.
-Tom