Registry Working Group

["Kuch/Mitchell/D." <>]

The whois.radb.net  !i  regression has been addressed. The service behavior 
has been corrected.

 - - Mitchell
     Merit

----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Blunk" <>
To: "wg-irr" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 3:32:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WG-IRR] RFC 2622 Interpretation

Hi Michael,
     Yes, this should work (and had been working).   However, we recently 
moved
the RADB whois service behind haproxy and there appears to have been some
miscommunication with about which IRRd version was to be used on the backend.
We are working on restoring the functionality.  Thanks for bringing up this 
issue.


  -Larry Blunk
   Merit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael H Lambert" <>
To: "wg-irr" <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 2:45:27 PM
Subject: [WG-IRR] RFC 2622 Interpretation

Here's a question.  Based on my reading of section 5.3 of RFC 2622, ASNs or 
as-sets can be members of route-sets, as in

route-set:  AS5050:RS-INTERNET2
descr:      Routes sourced to Internet2 by AS5050
members:    AS5050:AS-ABILENE-ONLY, AS5050:AS-I1-ABILENE
members:    AS5050:RS-3ROX-CORE-I2-ELIGIBLE
tech-c:     PN-ORG-ARIN
mnt-by:     MAINT-AS5050
changed:     20120502
changed:     20120523
changed:     20150223
source:     RADB

However, when I evaluate this object with bgpq3, peval or even Level3's 
filtergen or "whois -m -- \!ias5050:rs-internet2,1", only the route-set 
member is being expanded.  Am I misinterpreting the RFC, or are the tools not 
correctly implementing it?  I suspect the former, but the RFC seems pretty 
explicit.

Michael