This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Christopher Kunz
chrislist at de-punkt.de
Mon Jan 12 15:34:00 CET 2015
Am 12.01.15 um 15:23 schrieb Shahin Gharghi: > Dear Edward > > Let's imagine an LIR that has IPv4 & IPv6 allocation without AS Number. > When they ask for an AS Number RIPE NCC says you have to have two peers. > But this new LIR only has one peer. Is it impossible? > If the LIR has only one upstream (I think when you say "peer" you actually mean "upstream"), an ASN is not required and since the multihoming requirement is not fulfilled, will probably not be issued, but YMMV. > So if RIPE NCC asks for our peer to confirm, why don't they contact them > to confirm? > And they can easily find the LIR contact of those AS Numbers and get > confirm from them. Why should we tell the email and the phone number of > our peer to RIPE NCC? > This question just makes our process longer. > Your complaining on members-list certainly doesn't help speeding up your "process", so I suggest you either contact RIPE directly with your gripes or provide some other argument than "it bothers me" why you think the policy in effect should not apply to you. A discussion needs arguments. Regards, --ck
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]