[lir-wg] AS Number Policy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Berislav Todorovic [mailto:beri at kpnqwest.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 6:38 AM
> To: Hank Nussbacher
> Cc: Christopher Sharp; lir-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> 
> >> I'd like to make a suggestion. Since these ASNs and IP 
> blocks are the
> >> property of the RIRs, and since organizations are cybersquatting on
> >> these resources why shouldn't these RIRs advertise these 
> IP blocks and
> >> ASNs themselves and blackhole them to their routers?
> 
> I'd like to back this idea!
> 
> However, even if ICANN itself suddenly gets stroken by 
> lightning of technical
> wisdom and starts announcing unused /8's - that won't prevent 
> offenders from
> announcing more specific routes, will it? On the other hand, 
> announcing /24's
> will really pollute the global routing table, which is big 
> enough anyway.

I don't think to blackholing traffic is a good idea, especially
when bandwidth means money in today's internet.

RIRs should publish a list to include all the offending prefixes and
the major ISPs will be more than happy to apply the prefix filter to
block transit to those prefixes. There is already an IANA bogon filter
floating around.

RIPE NCC could add a filter-set object, let's say FLTR-RIPE-RESERVED-IPV4
and
ARIN should have a FLTR-ARIN-RESERVED-IPV4 object, 
APNIC also should have a FLTR-APNIC-RESERVED-IPV4 object.
Then all major ISPs could apply these filter to block transit traffic for
these
prefixes. 


> 
> Still, having a service like Paul Vixie's AS7777 would help a 
> lot: an ISP
> willing to receive blackhole routes would bring a route 
> server on their
> backbone, establish a peering session with "IANA blackhole 
> AS" and use the
> routes to construct filters etc.
> 
> Regards,
> Beri
>

Blocking is a better idea than blackholing....

Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu at cw.net