[lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued

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

  No :-)

>>> 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" ?

  True. But to me it was not obvious yet, which "subset" of existing AS#s
  we are talking about, and whether the procedure would be pro-active only
  or post-factum as well.

>>> 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?

  Yes. Please see below.

>>> 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.

  I was reading it that way, too.
  But my experience with talking to people who for whatever reason get
  hold of these messages, and do not necessarily have the "implicit"
  mindset get mixed up easily.

>>   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.

  ...and would actually, sort of through the backdoor, help to achieve
  better population of the Routing Registry. As you state, the quality of
  the data is a different issue, I agree.

  And defining the proper place for a registration is another "minor"
  technical issue
  (Q: portability of AS numbers amongst RIR service areas?).
  But we could give it a try...

>Basically RIPE could then check assigned AS:es to registred. Still, 
>the object does not have to be upto-date or actually reflecting anything. 

  Correct.

>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.

  I think we've been there: there is some chance that you cannot see
  those beasts from those places. Thus my claim (see above) that a
  statement of use (format to be discusssed) should be enough.
  
  For me it's a matter of the "10/90 rule": the cost of achieving 90% of
  your goal is 10%, doing the remainnig 10% is going to cost you 90%...

>Best regards,
>
>- kurtis -

  Cheers,
  Wilfried.