Registry Working Group

[Michael H Lambert <>]

Thank you!  I guess this means the tools use irrd for their heavy lifting.

Michael

> On 28 Aug 2019, at 21:02, Kuch/Mitchell/D. <> wrote:
> 
> 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