nanog mailing list archives
Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects?
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:57:34 -0500
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 02:30:06PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:So who do we ask about making IRRs expire defunct objectsyou might start with a rigorous definition of defunct
I have my own ideas on this topic, including routes that have not been seen for over 1 year. You may always miss the routes that are not 'seen' on the public internet though. I'm still reminded of the question on the internic forms in early 90s about "will you be connecting to the internet" when asking for address space.
Do the internet route registries exist to track routes that are not to appear on the public internet? I think not. There should probably be an attribute provided for such objects, however, that would indicate "This route does not appear on the public internet". If not tagged like that in some manner, and a matching route does has not appeared on the public internet at any time during the past 6 to 12 months, then I would consider the registry object to be defunct.
- Jared
-- -JH
Current thread:
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Randy Bush (Oct 31)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Jared Mauch (Nov 01)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Jimmy Hess (Nov 01)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Rob Seastrom (Nov 01)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Baldur Norddahl (Nov 02)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Rob Seastrom (Nov 02)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Jimmy Hess (Nov 01)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Jared Mauch (Nov 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Ca By (Nov 01)
- Re: Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects? Tim Howe (Nov 01)