Hi Ed,

I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good reason for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either as there are none currently.

https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&inverse=origin&rflag=true&searchtext=AS23456&source=RIPE

So assuming that I didn't mess up the query and that there are in fact none currently, I think it is completely reasonable to exclude AS23456 as while not listed as "reserved" it is reserved for a specific internal (unlike AS112) use case.

-Cynthia

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 4:05 PM Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Hi Job,

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 15:08, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Working Group,
>
> I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the
> totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle.
>
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
>> Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing
>> the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved,
>> by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?
>
> Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following
>
> 0 # RFC 7607
> 23456 # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS
> 64496..64511 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
> 64512..65534 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
> 65535 # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN
> 65536..65551 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs
> 65552..131071 # RFC IANA reserved ASNs
> 4200000000..4294967294 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs
> 4294967295 # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN
>
> seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment similar
> restrictions apply.
>

Currently it is not possible to create a route(6) in the RIPE database with a 'reserved' AS number according to:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml

which includes 0,64496-131071,4200000000-4294967295

So 23456 is *not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees.

Regards
Ed Shryane
RIPE NCC