RFC2725

Guten Tag,

I hope this is the correct forum - if not please direct me to a more
appropriate one.

After following the discussion for a while I am still unsure about the 
exact consequences of the activation of RFC2725 on 23-Apr-2001. I will
try to summarize my understanding: Please check this and correct me 
where necessary. You will find a list of open questions at the bottom of 
this mail.

As Frank Bohnsack wrote in 

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/current/msg00090.html

AS numbers are allocated to regional registries as shown in

  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/as-numbers

and the IPv4 address space allocated to various registries as shown in

  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space

RFC2725 states in section 9.9 that during addition of an inetnum the most 
specific matching inetnum is being searched to find the required
authentication. During addition of a route the aut-num of the
originating AS and either a most specific matching inetnum or a most
specific matching route is being searched to find the required 
authentication.

This leaves UUNET in a curious situation. For example, UUNET uses
AS 702 which is in the range 1 - 1876 allocated by the ARIN and the
inetnum 193.96.0.0/13 which is in 193.0.0.0/8 allocated by the RIPE.
With RFC2725 in place UUNET would have its aut-num record in a different
registry than its inetnum, rendering it impossible to add routes for
the 193.0.0.0/8.

There are probably more complications caused by moving data from one 
registry to another. For example, some people will continue to expect 
information at the original registry because they did not prepare
for RFC2725, breaking mechanisms such as automatic prefix filter
creation.

Andrei Robachevsky presented two suggestions in 

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/current/msg00095.html

Suggestion 1 means that RIPE will implement changes so that RFC2725
will be in effect for AS numbers and IP address space allocated by RIPE 
only. No checks according to RFC2725 will be done for all other AS 
numbers and IP address space.

Suggestion 2 means that there will be encompassing inetnum objects
which contain the address ranges assigned to other registries than RIPE.
These objects will have a maintainer with NONE authentication so that
everybody can add routes within these inetnum which refer to their own
aut-num records.

No decision has been made on whether one of the suggestion and, if so, 
which of them will be implemented.

So far my understanding. Please review - if it is completely wrong I 
hope that I at least amused you. ;-)

Thank you for your help!

Holger Münx

EMEA Access & Backbone Networks   UUNET Deutschland GmbH
Tel. +49 231 972 0                Sebrathweg 20
Fax. +49 231 972 1111             44149 Dortmund, Germany
Holger.Muenx at de.uu.net            http://www.de.uu.net/