[lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued

>   Not really important, but just to avoid being counted as agreeing :-)

Horrible thought? :)


>> Anyway, I think that everyone have suggested to do both with a OR in
>> between.
>
>   ...no objection against the OR, but the result of the OR should not be
>   the _only_ input to a decision process. It would be an efficient
>   mechanism to be used _in support_ of continued AS# holdership, though.

Agreed. OTH, this discussion to me was for new AS assignments that are not 
yet used. Which is somewhat easier to deal with than with existing AS:es. 
AS286 beeing an example that is announced but the question is if we can 
consider it "as in use" ?


>> Basically just claiming that "yes I do peer at backwater-IX with
>> Farm-IP and Countryside Networks and I don't get transit from anywhere"
>> should not be enouhg.
>
>   I disagree.

I read this as you mean that RIPE NCC shoudl trust the word of the AS 
number holder?


>> RIPE should be able to verify that this is true.
>
>   Some nit-picking...
>
>   RIPE (the community): I don't think so - other than having access to
>   some publicly accessible documentation, e.g. in the Routing Registry.

My mistake. I ment the RIPE NCC.

>   The NCC: maybe, if and when we can agree on the criteria,
>   and the cost for verification vs. the result.



Well, if we consider the RIPE db OR announced (or both - which is what it 
is supposed to be if the latter is true) it's not that hard. First, a 
requirement to register the AS number policy to keep it would be a easy 
task. Basically RIPE could then check assigned AS:es to registred. Still, 
the object does not have to be upto-date or actually reflecting anything. 
Second, as I belive there is so few assigned AS:es that never make it to 
the global routing tabele, I would like to define a few points of checks. 
These could even be route servers and this could be included in the 
automation. It could also be from the view of the test-traffic boxes.

Best regards,

- kurtis -