[lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued

>> 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.

Well, I think you have a valid point in that if we should start with this, 
we might as well do it post-factum as well. Problem then is that we need to 
automate this. And that will a task for the RIPE NCC, and require 
resources. So, I think for the distinction to make sense - we should first 
try and figure out how large the "current" problem is. See my previous 
posting, I think we need a comparison of the RIPE DB to a full BGP table. 
then we could pick a few AS:es and try and analys them.


>>>   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.


Yes. Actually I would suggest that we would make this a requirement for 
keeping and acquireing an AS. This would require a policy change though I 
guess and some tools to verify. See above.


>   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...

Well, portably I guess is an issue anyway as the database refer to each 
other (or do they only do that if there is no match? I am not really into 
the whois data...).


>> 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.

If we take a few steps back in the discussion - we said (well at least I 
did..:) ) that a ISP would be contacted after [a] time and asked if they 
had used the AS. If not they would be given [b] time (unless they had come 
to the conclusion they did not needed it or could meet the timeline) to 
correct this. I would suggest that after [a] time they are required to make 
a statement along the suggested lines of :

	- Upstream
	- Peers
	- etc.

Perhaps as with the current IP space useage form (after just having filled 
in one and trying to get it approved I am sure that is enough to scare most 
people away anyway...:) ).

However, I suggest that then, after [b] time they need to prove that this 
is now in use. Why? Well, if we assume that [a] is six months and [b] is 
six months, they have had a year. In that time they should have got 
whatever they needed the AS for up and running.


>   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%...

Agreed, but it is also a question of how the cost really is. Compared to 
work we (well, the RIPE NCC) spend on IP space, some mechanisms here 
shouldn't matter to much...

- kurtis -