Is it unusual to remove defunct rr objects?

Fri Oct 31 17:39:34 UTC 2014

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:34:23AM -0700, Tim Howe wrote:
> 	I've since found a disturbing number of defunct objects that
> relate to my customers (and me) in a similar way, and I have mostly
> had success in getting them cleared up.  If my relatively small
> customer base is any indication, there are more incorrect objects out
> there than correct ones.  I feel this is something I should have been
> looking into sooner.

	People tend to treat things like IRR (eg: RADB, etc) as a
garbage pit you toss things into and never remove from.

> 	Is this a non-issue that I shouldn't worry about?  Doesn't the
> quality of this data effect Origin Validation efforts?

	Yes it does.  This has a fairly severe impact for those that build
off the IRR data for filters.  We have seen customers end up including
AS7018 in their AS-SET or as you noticed have other legacy routes appear.

> 
> 	Sorry that this turned out so long; I wanted to give some
> context.

	No worries.  I've got a transient routing leak detector
that does find/fuzz these issues which has been running for a few
years now.  I'm guessing you may see some of the related prefixes
there as a result.  It's in need of a U/I redesign (code welcome)
but is located here:

	http://puck.nether.net/bgp/leakinfo.cgi

	- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.