[routing-wg] AS201640

In message <2359D829-0A68-40C2-ABF4-78199D8B49E0 at steffann.nl>, 
Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>> 1)  How was it possible for various IPv4 block WHOIS records to be
>> stored in the RIPE WHOIS DB, even though it is quite apparently the
>> case that, according to IANA WHOIS records, the IP blocks in question
>> do not even belong to the RIPE region?  Is there really no pre-checking
>> performed on such records before they are stored in the RIPE data base,
>> e.g. to see if the blocks in question belong either to RIPE or to some
>> other RiR?
>
>First one clarification: we're talking about route objects here, not
>inetnum or aut-num objects. Route objects document which ASN is supposed
>to announce which address space. There are valid use cases for an ASN
>from one region to announce address space from another region. In other
>words: the inetnum object from one region's database is linked to the
>aut-num object in another region's database. Making referential
>integrity and authorisation work in such cases is very hard. The current
>implementation is quite permissive to make it possible to document
>real-life situations. Unfortunately it also makes it possible to
>reference some resources in other regions that don't belong to you.

Thank you.  The above response is both clear and enlightening... for me
anyway.  And it makes perfect sense.  I will certainly be paying a lot
more attention to those WHOIS field names in the future!

>> 2)  How was it possible for a particular Bulgarian commercial organization
>> to be granted its own AS number, when all available evidence seems to
>> indicate that it actually had, and has, -zero- IP addresses which are
>> actually and properly registered to it?  Is there really no pre-checking
>> performed on AS number allocations, e.g. to see if the organization
>> requesting the AS has at least some IP addresses?
>
>Having IP addresses is not a requirement for getting an ASN. There are
>many legitimate cases where an ASN may be used to announce address space
>belonging to someone else. For example an ISP announcing address space
>belonging to its customer. Or a transit provider.

OK, that's a good point.  But I'm not sure that it fully negates the
possible value of my question.

Everybody is _supposed_ to have working e-mail address contacts in their
IP allocation records within the WHOIS data bases of the various RiRs,
yes?  So suppose that there had been a protocol in place that required
an affirmative e-mail response from at least one legitimate IP address
block registrant (in some/any region) before the allocation of an AS
number would proceed.  Such a protocol would have forestalled the
situation that we now see with AS201640, would it not?


Regards,
rfg