v1.0.0: Stable Selfhosted Release

README.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
   <img src="frontend/public/routeforge.png" alt="RouteForge Logo" width="420">
 </p>
 <p align="center">
-  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/version-v0.9.2--rc-blue" alt="Version">
+  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/version-v1.0.0-blue" alt="Version">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/license-AGPL--3.0--or--later-orange" alt="License">
-  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/status-beta-yellow" alt="Status">
+  <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/status-stable-brightgreen" alt="Status">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/selfhosted-ready-success" alt="Selfhosted">
   <img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/read--only-routing%20safe-informational" alt="Read-only">
 </p>
@@ -41,9 +41,9 @@ It combines these checks into an explainable, read-only preflight workflow.
 
 Routing changes often require fast but traceable checks across multiple external data views. RouteForge provides a single UI/API workflow so teams can run consistent preflight checks, share results, and keep a documented decision trail.
 
-## Current Alpha Status
+## Current Release
 
-RouteForge is a **functional beta** release with production-like workflows for read-only validation and demo usage. Current release target: **v0.9.2-rc**.
+RouteForge is a **stable selfhosted** release for production-grade read-only validation workflows. Current release: **v1.0.0**.
 
 ## Quickstart with Docker Compose
 
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ RouteForge is read-only by design:
 
 ## Known Limitations
 
-- Alpha software, interfaces may evolve.
+- Stable release with ongoing minor UX/documentation improvements.
 - RIPEstat payloads can vary over time.
 - No local RPKI validator yet.
 - No full BGP monitoring replacement.

RELEASE_NOTES.md

@@ -1,3 +1,24 @@
+## v1.0.0 (2026-05-22)
+
+### Summary
+- Stable selfhosted RouteForge release.
+- Read-only routing safety model kept as a strict product baseline.
+- User management and role-based access control.
+- Audit Log.
+- Change Cases.
+- ASN Check, Prefix Check, and Preflight checks.
+- BGP Visibility.
+- ROA Planner / ROA Preflight.
+- Watch Mode and scheduled rechecks.
+- Reports and exports.
+- System status, security warnings, and upgrade documentation.
+- English-only UI and output polish.
+
+### Upgrade Notes
+- Upgrade backend/frontend to `1.0.0` and API-visible version to `v1.0.0`.
+- Keep Alembic migration discipline (`alembic current`, `alembic heads`, `alembic upgrade head`) before production use.
+- No new database migration was introduced specifically for this stable cut.
+
 ## v0.9.2-rc (2026-05-21)
 
 - UI Cleanup & English-only polish
@@ -91,8 +112,6 @@ BGP visibility checks remain read-only and do not modify RIPE DB, RPKI objects,
 - Added audit events for Change Case and attachment operations.
 - Security: Change Cases are local workflow metadata only; no writes to RIPE DB, RPKI, or routers are performed.
 
-# Release Notes
-
 ## v0.8.1-beta
 
 **Stabilization, UX Polish & Upgrade Safety**

ROADMAP.md

@@ -1,26 +1,29 @@
 # RouteForge Roadmap
 
 ## Current Status
-v0.9.2-rc, BGP Visibility Details completed, read-only
+RouteForge is now **v1.0.0 stable**: a selfhosted, read-only routing preflight release for production-oriented validation workflows.
 
-## v0.9.2-rc
-- projects/change cases
-- grouped preflight reports
+## v1.0.0 Completed Scope
+The stable release includes:
+- User Management
+- Role-based access control
+- Session authentication
+- Audit Log
+- Change Cases
+- ASN Check
+- Prefix Check
+- Preflight
+- BGP Visibility
+- ROA Planner / ROA Preflight
+- Watch Mode / Scheduled Rechecks
+- Reports and exports
+- System Status
+- Security and upgrade documentation
+- English-only UI and output cleanup
+- Read-only safety model
 
-## v0.9.2-rc
-- bgp visibility details
+## Historical Release Context
+Recent release-candidate work (v0.9.x-rc) focused on stabilizing BGP visibility details, ROA preflight workflows, watch scheduling/rechecks, deployment QA, and upgrade discipline that culminated in v1.0.0.
 
-## v0.9.2-rc
-- roa planner / roa preflight
-
-## v0.9.2-rc
-- watch mode / scheduled rechecks
-
-## v0.9.2-rc
-- security review
-- UX review
-- API stability
-- upgrade tests
-
-## v1.0.0
-- stable selfhosted RouteForge release
+## Future Roadmap
+Post-v1.0.0 work will focus on operational maturity, documentation quality, and maintainability without changing the core read-only safety model.

backend/app/api/routes_system.py

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 def system_info():
     return {
         'name': 'RouteForge',
-        'version': 'v0.9.2-rc',
+        'version': 'v1.0.0',
         'demo_mode': settings.demo_mode,
         'read_only': True,
         'data_sources': ['RIPEstat', 'RIPEstat Whois/Registry'],

backend/app/core/prefix_evaluation.py

@@ -20,42 +20,42 @@ def evaluate_prefix_overall(
 
     if CheckStatus.CRITICAL in statuses.values():
         if statuses["routing"] == CheckStatus.CRITICAL:
-            return _critical("RPKI und Registry wirken plausibel, aber die sichtbare Routing-Origin weicht ab.", "Das Prefix ist sichtbar, aber nicht mit dem erwarteten Origin-AS.")
+            return _critical("RPKI and registry look plausible, but visible routing origin differs.", "The prefix is visible, but not with the expected origin AS.")
         if statuses["rpki"] == CheckStatus.CRITICAL:
             return _critical("Das Prefix ist zwar sichtbar, aber RPKI meldet ein kritisches Problem.", "RPKI bewertet das Prefix-Origin-Paar kritisch, obwohl andere Checks ggf. positive Hinweise liefern.")
-        return _critical("Registry/IRR-Origin widerspricht dem angegebenen Origin-AS.", "Ein gefundenes route/route6-Origin weicht vom geprüften Origin-AS ab.")
+        return _critical("Registry/IRR origin conflicts with the provided origin AS.", "A discovered route/route6 origin differs from the checked origin AS.")
 
     if statuses["rpki"] == statuses["registry"] == statuses["routing"] == CheckStatus.UNKNOWN:
-        return _unknown("No reliable overall assessment possible.", "RPKI, Registry/IRR und Routing Visibility liefern keine verlässliche Aussage.")
+        return _unknown("No reliable overall assessment possible.", "RPKI, Registry/IRR, and routing visibility do not provide a reliable assessment.")
 
     if statuses["rpki"] == CheckStatus.OK and statuses["registry"] == CheckStatus.OK and statuses["routing"] == CheckStatus.OK:
         return {
             "status": CheckStatus.OK.value,
-            "summary": "Prefix-Origin-Paar wirkt autorisiert, dokumentiert und sichtbar.",
-            "explanation": "RPKI, Registry/IRR und Routing Visibility zeigen ein konsistentes Ergebnis.",
-            "risk": "Derzeit keine offensichtliche Inkonsistenz erkennbar.",
-            "recommendations": ["Routing-Sichtbarkeit und RPKI/Registry-Daten weiter überwachen."],
+            "summary": "Prefix-origin pair appears authorized, documented, and visible.",
+            "explanation": "RPKI, Registry/IRR, and routing visibility show a consistent result.",
+            "risk": "No obvious inconsistency is currently visible.",
+            "recommendations": ["Continue monitoring routing visibility and RPKI/registry data."],
         }
 
     if statuses["rpki"] == CheckStatus.OK and statuses["registry"] == CheckStatus.OK and statuses["routing"] == CheckStatus.UNKNOWN:
-        return _warning("Routing visibility could not be determined reliably.", "RPKI und Registry/IRR sind plausibel, aber die Routing-Sichtbarkeit bleibt unklar.")
+        return _warning("Routing visibility could not be determined reliably.", "RPKI and Registry/IRR are plausible, but routing visibility remains unclear.")
 
     if CheckStatus.WARNING in statuses.values():
-        return _warning("Kombinierte Prefix-Bewertung zeigt Warnhinweise.", "Mindestens eine Einzelprüfung meldet unvollständige oder unsichere Daten.")
+        return _warning("Combined prefix evaluation shows warnings.", "At least one individual check reports incomplete or uncertain data.")
 
     if CheckStatus.UNKNOWN in statuses.values():
-        return _warning("Teilweise bestätigte Datenlage mit Unsicherheit.", "Mindestens eine Quelle ist unklar; die Gesamtbewertung bleibt daher konservativ WARNING.")
+        return _warning("Partially confirmed data with uncertainty.", "At least one source is unclear; the overall assessment remains conservatively WARNING.")
 
-    return _unknown("Kombinierte Prefix-Bewertung nicht eindeutig bestimmbar.", "Die vorliegenden Einzelergebnisse konnten nicht konsistent kombiniert werden.")
+    return _unknown("Combined prefix evaluation is not clearly determinable.", "The available individual results could not be combined consistently.")
 
 
 def _warning(summary: str, explanation: str) -> dict:
     return {
         "status": CheckStatus.WARNING.value,
         "summary": summary,
         "explanation": explanation,
-        "risk": "Die Gesamtaussage bleibt eingeschränkt.",
-        "recommendations": ["Individual checks und Rohdaten gezielt nacharbeiten."],
+        "risk": "The overall conclusion remains limited.",
+        "recommendations": ["Review individual checks and raw data in detail."],
     }
 
 
@@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ def _critical(summary: str, explanation: str) -> dict:
         "status": CheckStatus.CRITICAL.value,
         "summary": summary,
         "explanation": explanation,
-        "risk": "Erhöhtes Risk für Fehlrouting, Erreichbarkeitsprobleme oder Sicherheitsvorfälle.",
-        "recommendations": ["Abweichung priorisiert prüfen und beheben."],
+        "risk": "Increased risk of misrouting, reachability issues, or security incidents.",
+        "recommendations": ["Prioritize checking and resolving the discrepancy."],
     }
 
 
@@ -74,8 +74,8 @@ def _unknown(summary: str, explanation: str) -> dict:
         "status": CheckStatus.UNKNOWN.value,
         "summary": summary,
         "explanation": explanation,
-        "risk": "Die Datenlage ist unzureichend für eine belastbare Routing-Sicherheitsbewertung.",
-        "recommendations": ["Prüfung später wiederholen und Rohdaten kontrollieren."],
+        "risk": "The data is insufficient for a reliable routing security assessment.",
+        "recommendations": ["Repeat the check later and verify raw data."],
     }
 
 

backend/app/core/recommendations.py

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ def default_recommendations(status: CheckStatus) -> list[str]:
     if status == CheckStatus.WARNING:
         return ["Review RPKI/registry data and improve coverage."]
     if status == CheckStatus.CRITICAL:
-        return ["Origin-AS und ROA sofort verifizieren, da Route verworfen werden kann."]
+        return ["Verify origin AS and ROA immediately, because the route may be rejected."]
     return ["Check again; external data source was unreliable or unavailable."]
 
 
@@ -38,20 +38,20 @@ def evaluate_rpki_status(rpki_status: str | None, prefix: str, origin_as: str |
         return {
             "status": CheckStatus.CRITICAL.value,
             "summary": "RPKI validation failed",
-            "explanation": "Das Prefix wird mit einem Origin-AS geprüft, das nicht durch einen passenden ROA gedeckt ist.",
+            "explanation": "The prefix is checked with an origin AS that is not covered by a matching ROA.",
             "risk": "Validierende Netze können diese Route verwerfen. Dadurch kann Erreichbarkeit verloren gehen.",
             "recommendations": [
                 "Check whether the origin AS is correct.",
                 "Review existing ROAs for the prefix.",
-                "Erstelle oder korrigiere den ROA nur, wenn du zur Verwaltung dieser Ressourcen berechtigt bist.",
+                "Create or correct the ROA only if you are authorized to manage these resources.",
             ],
         }
     if normalized == "invalid_asn":
         return {
             "status": CheckStatus.CRITICAL.value,
             "summary": "RPKI invalid: unauthorized origin AS",
-            "explanation": "Für das Prefix existiert ein ROA, aber nicht für dieses Origin-AS.",
-            "risk": "Validierende Netze können diese Route verwerfen, weil das Origin-AS nicht autorisiert ist.",
+            "explanation": "A ROA exists for the prefix, but not for this origin AS.",
+            "risk": "Validating networks may reject this route because the origin AS is not authorized.",
             "recommendations": [
                 "Check the origin AS.",
                 "Review the ROA.",
@@ -62,8 +62,8 @@ def evaluate_rpki_status(rpki_status: str | None, prefix: str, origin_as: str |
         return {
             "status": CheckStatus.CRITICAL.value,
             "summary": "RPKI invalid: announced prefix too specific",
-            "explanation": "Für das Prefix existiert ein ROA, aber die angekündigte Prefix-Länge ist länger als die erlaubte maxLength.",
-            "risk": "Validierende Netze können diese Route verwerfen, obwohl das AS grundsätzlich passen kann.",
+            "explanation": "A ROA exists for the prefix, but the announced prefix length is longer than the allowed maxLength.",
+            "risk": "Validating networks may reject this route, even though the AS may otherwise match.",
             "recommendations": [
                 "Check announced prefix length.",
                 "Check ROA maxLength.",
@@ -74,8 +74,8 @@ def evaluate_rpki_status(rpki_status: str | None, prefix: str, origin_as: str |
         return {
             "status": CheckStatus.WARNING.value,
             "summary": "No matching ROA found",
-            "explanation": "Für dieses Prefix-Origin-Paar wurde kein passender ROA gefunden.",
-            "risk": "Das ist nicht automatisch ein Ausfall, schwächt aber die Routing-Sicherheit.",
+            "explanation": "No matching ROA was found for this prefix-origin pair.",
+            "risk": "This is not automatically an outage, but it weakens routing security.",
             "recommendations": [
                 "Check whether a ROA should be created.",
                 "Nur anlegen, wenn man zur Verwaltung berechtigt ist.",
@@ -90,6 +90,6 @@ def evaluate_rpki_status(rpki_status: str | None, prefix: str, origin_as: str |
         "recommendations": [
             "Review the API raw data.",
             "Repeat the check later.",
-            "Vergleiche bei Bedarf mit einer zweiten Quelle oder einem lokalen RPKI-Validator.",
+            "Compare with a secondary source or a local RPKI validator if needed.",
         ],
     }

backend/app/core/system_status.py

@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ def build_system_status(engine: Engine | None) -> dict:
     return {
         "status": "ok",
         "name": settings.app_name,
-        "version": "v0.9.2-rc",
+        "version": "v1.0.0",
         "read_only": True,
         "mode": "demo" if settings.demo_mode else "live",
         "demo_mode": settings.demo_mode,

backend/app/main.py

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
 logging.basicConfig(level=getattr(logging, settings.log_level.upper(), logging.INFO))
 logger = logging.getLogger("routeforge")
 
-app = FastAPI(title="RouteForge", version="0.9.2")
+app = FastAPI(title="RouteForge", version="1.0.0")
 
 app.add_middleware(
     CORSMiddleware,

backend/app/services/asn_checker.py

@@ -49,9 +49,9 @@ def check(self, asn_input: str) -> dict:
 
         errors = []
         if "error" in overview:
-            errors.append("as-overview nicht erreichbar")
+            errors.append("as-overview not reachable")
         if "error" in prefixes:
-            errors.append("announced-prefixes nicht erreichbar")
+            errors.append("announced-prefixes not reachable")
         status = CheckStatus.UNKNOWN.value if errors else CheckStatus.OK.value
         summary = f"ASN {resource} checked."
         return {

backend/app/services/bgp_visibility_service.py

@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ def check(self, prefix: str, expected_origin_as: str | None) -> dict:
         return {
             "status": status,
             "summary": summary,
-            "explanation": "BGP Visibility basiert auf RIPEstat-Daten und ist read-only.",
+            "explanation": "BGP visibility is based on RIPEstat data and is read-only.",
             "risk": "External visibility data may be delayed or incomplete.",
             "recommendations": recommendations,
             "input": {"prefix": normalized_prefix, "expected_origin_as": normalized_expected},