[routing-wg] AS201640

In message <35CC580F-0722-4973-A1E6-9F14A63A6D64 at steffann.nl>, 
Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>> 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?
>
>It is a possible implementation but one that only has a one-time check.
>It wouldn't keep track of changes to resources in other regions. The
>working group asked the RIPE NCC to look into the possibilities and
>report back to the working group. Let's see if there is a easy to use
>solution that makes sure we don't import data into our database that
>then end up being invalid or outdated.

I agree that this is an emminently reasonable way to proceed.

And yes, as we now know, a simple one-time up-front check of the kind
I described would _not_ have prevented the sitiation with AS201640
from arising, because that AS _did_ start out life with its own
legitimate /24 allocation... which was subsequently withdrawn.  So
in this case, the kind of consistancy check I proposed would have
been no help at all in preventing what ultimately ensued.  (And in
fact, that initial & temporary /24 allocation for AS201640 would
seem to have been deliberately *engineered* to defeat exactly such
a check, even if such a thing had been in place at the time AS201640
was created.)


Regards,
rfg