- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 02 Aug '02

02 Aug '02

>> Not really important, but just to avoid being counted as agreeing :-) > >Horrible thought? :) No :-) >>> Anyway, I think that everyone have suggested to do both with a OR in >>> between. >> >> ...no objection against the OR, but the result of the OR should not be >> the _only_ input to a decision process. It would be an efficient >> mechanism to be used _in support_ of continued AS# holdership, though. > >Agreed. OTH, this discussion to me was for new AS assignments that are not >yet used. Which is somewhat easier to deal with than with existing AS:es. >AS286 beeing an example that is announced but the question is if we can >consider it "as in use" ? True. But to me it was not obvious yet, which "subset" of existing AS#s we are talking about, and whether the procedure would be pro-active only or post-factum as well. >>> Basically just claiming that "yes I do peer at backwater-IX with >>> Farm-IP and Countryside Networks and I don't get transit from anywhere" >>> should not be enouhg. >> >> I disagree. > >I read this as you mean that RIPE NCC shoudl trust the word of the AS >number holder? Yes. Please see below. >>> RIPE should be able to verify that this is true. >> >> Some nit-picking... >> >> RIPE (the community): I don't think so - other than having access to >> some publicly accessible documentation, e.g. in the Routing Registry. > >My mistake. I ment the RIPE NCC. I was reading it that way, too. But my experience with talking to people who for whatever reason get hold of these messages, and do not necessarily have the "implicit" mindset get mixed up easily. >> The NCC: maybe, if and when we can agree on the criteria, >> and the cost for verification vs. the result. > >Well, if we consider the RIPE db OR announced (or both - which is what it >is supposed to be if the latter is true) it's not that hard. First, a >requirement to register the AS number policy to keep it would be a easy >task. ...and would actually, sort of through the backdoor, help to achieve better population of the Routing Registry. As you state, the quality of the data is a different issue, I agree. And defining the proper place for a registration is another "minor" technical issue (Q: portability of AS numbers amongst RIR service areas?). But we could give it a try... >Basically RIPE could then check assigned AS:es to registred. Still, >the object does not have to be upto-date or actually reflecting anything. Correct. >Second, as I belive there is so few assigned AS:es that never make it to >the global routing tabele, I would like to define a few points of checks. >These could even be route servers and this could be included in the >automation. It could also be from the view of the test-traffic boxes. I think we've been there: there is some chance that you cannot see those beasts from those places. Thus my claim (see above) that a statement of use (format to be discusssed) should be enough. For me it's a matter of the "10/90 rule": the cost of achieving 90% of your goal is 10%, doing the remainnig 10% is going to cost you 90%... >Best regards, > >- kurtis - Cheers, Wilfried.

2 1

AS Number Policy - continued
by leo vegoda 02 Aug '02

02 Aug '02

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for your comments on my initial questions and the wide ranging discussion that took place. I would like to continue this discussion by asking two more questions: 1. Should the RIPE NCC check whether Autonomous System Numbers it has assigned become multi-homed within six months? If you would like us to do this, the RIPE NCC proposes to do so by looking at routing policies registered in the Routing Registry. 2. Should the policy be changed so that AS numbers not in use can be reclaimed? If there is consensus on this we propose to reclaim AS numbers of networks not multi-homed after six months. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services

11 23

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 02 Aug '02

02 Aug '02

Tanya, >What would you suggest for a definition of "not in use"? 1st attempt (formally): "For an extended period of time [a] not used for the unique identification of one or more routing processes and/or relationships, on any EGP speaking device. No intent to used the AS number for any such purpose within an extended period of time [b]." [a] period t.b.d. by the community, but not shorter than 6 month [b] period t.b.d. by the community, but not shorter than 12 month 2nd attempt (down to earth approach :-) "Not used at all, no intent to use, simply sitting on as desk; or the entity no longer being aware of it's AS# holdership." >I agree that we do need to define "not in use". :-) And by the way I agree that the community should _encourage_ recycling of AS numbers! >Tanya Wwilfried.

2 1

RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Lu, Ping 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

Yes, RIPE should definitely reclaim unused ASN but how is the question. 1. Global routing table is not complete due to various reasons discussed before 2. Whois database could be out-of-date ( If I didn't return the ASN by myself, I probably won't delete my aut-num object as well). 3. Multi-home doesn't mean Multi-LIR. Most tier-1 ISPs have more than one ASN and there are definitely some end-users connect to two ASNs but under one company. 4. Is RIPE doing this free-of-charge or the paying LIR will expense this. By saying this, I am thinking maybe ASN should be renewed with an annual fee ? Euro 50 or wait $50 is cheaper now :) Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:woeber@cc.univie.ac.at] > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:52 AM > To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Cc: woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued > > > Dear Leo! > > >I would like to continue this discussion by asking two more > >questions: > > > >1. Should the RIPE NCC check whether Autonomous System Numbers > > it has assigned become multi-homed within six months? If you > > would like us to do this, the RIPE NCC proposes to do so by > > looking at routing policies registered in the Routing Registry. > > NO, > > because the method proposed in your Q (and those discussed in this > context on the mailng list) is not going to provide reliable data. > > I am prepared to answer YES, > - if this is done for statistical reasons ONLY, > - and any data getting published carries an appropriate > "fuzziness disclaimer" (tbd). > > >2. Should the policy be changed so that AS numbers not in use > > can be reclaimed? If there is consensus on this we propose > > to reclaim AS numbers of networks not multi-homed after six > > months. > > NO. > > With the qualification that > I am more than willing to change that to a YES > as soon as > - we have an agreed definition of "not in use", > - and we have agreed on the procedures (and the cost for > verification) > to check, plus the impact on the performance of the > Hostmaster Role. > > >Kind regards, > > > >-- > >leo vegoda > >RIPE NCC > >Registration Services > > Regards, > Wilfried > > _________________________________:____________________________ > _________ > Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at > UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 > Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 > A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID > 0xF0ACB369 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~ >

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

Dear Leo! >I would like to continue this discussion by asking two more >questions: > >1. Should the RIPE NCC check whether Autonomous System Numbers > it has assigned become multi-homed within six months? If you > would like us to do this, the RIPE NCC proposes to do so by > looking at routing policies registered in the Routing Registry. NO, because the method proposed in your Q (and those discussed in this context on the mailng list) is not going to provide reliable data. I am prepared to answer YES, - if this is done for statistical reasons ONLY, - and any data getting published carries an appropriate "fuzziness disclaimer" (tbd). >2. Should the policy be changed so that AS numbers not in use > can be reclaimed? If there is consensus on this we propose > to reclaim AS numbers of networks not multi-homed after six > months. NO. With the qualification that I am more than willing to change that to a YES as soon as - we have an agreed definition of "not in use", - and we have agreed on the procedures (and the cost for verification) to check, plus the impact on the performance of the Hostmaster Role. >Kind regards, > >-- >leo vegoda >RIPE NCC >Registration Services Regards, Wilfried _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

>On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 03:07:55PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >> I do not recall when exactly the NCC stopped to work on ((PI-)IP-Adress >> and AS Number) requests from Non-LIRs. It's been a while :-) > >One has always been able to apply for an AS number without being a >LIR - one just needs to have the application handled via an existing >LIR Correct! Which gets us closer to the core: I'd expect the NCC to start bothering the _LIRs_ (if they are still in business :-). Without having a clear mutual understanding of what the procedure would look like, who would have to endure all the finger- pointing and who would have to foot the bill (well the answer is obvious to me ;-) it is premature to ask for a YES or NO to "policy". Btw. I have already asked for an estimate about the number of ASs being available for recycling, and for a guestimate on the extension of the 16bit AS number version's lifetime. I am not aware of any data or discussion, but I might have missed it. >-- >Denesh Bhabuta >Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net >Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net >Nominet PAB Member ; co-Chair RIPE LIR-WG _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy - continued
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 01 Aug '02

01 Aug '02

>Sure, becoming a LIR and obtaining an AS-Number are two very different things. >You dont need to be a LIR to get an AS-Number. You can apply for an AS-Number >as soon as you have routeable ip-space and 2 upstreams for BGP4 peering. >(Please correct me if they did change that recently) > To keep the administrative overhead small, I'ld suggest to let the new AS- > owner show at least two agreements within "x" month after the assignment of > the AS-# only if there are less than two verified peerings. I'ld see a > verified peering as a record in both AS's whois-entry _and_ seen on the RIPE > BGP-router (or on some other "neutral" point, like EP routers). ripe-227 (asnrequestform), issued 1 Octboer 2001 requires an "X-NCC-RegID:" I do not recall when exactly the NCC stopped to work on ((PI-)IP-Adress and AS Number) requests from Non-LIRs. It's been a while :-) Wilfried.

3 2

PGP support
by Christakis Christophorou 30 Jul '02

30 Jul '02

Dear colleagues, I would like to implement a PGP authentication scheme with RIPE. I would appreciate any help including suggestions about any plugin to be used with an existing email client software (outlook express etc) or any completely independent software. I have tried PGP Freeware with success but keys state that this version is for "non commercial use" and Network Associates does not support it any more. I have also tried GnuPG but without any success (keys are created with 0 bytes). Thanks Chris

1 0

Re: New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects"
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Jul '02

26 Jul '02

Dear Leo and "Team", >The new draft is available from our web site at: > ><http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html> Looks good! >We would welcome comments on this new draft until Thursday, 1 August >2002. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Procedural question: How are we going to modify existing objects to conform to this proposal? Right now the template query returns: bash-2.05a$ wripe -t inet6num [ ... ] inet6num: [mandatory] [single] [primary/look-up key] [ ... ] status: [generated] [single] [ ] [ ... ] and it seems to be "optional" for the (new) ALLOCATED-BY-RIR case: bash-2.05a$ wripe -r 2001:0628::/35 [ ... ] inet6num: 2001:0628::/35 netname: AT-ACONET-19990920 descr: ACOnet Sub-TLA block country: AT admin-c: WW144 tech-c: WW144 tech-c: WK42 tech-c: CP8-RIPE notify: Domain-Admin(a)UniVie.ac.at mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: ACONET-LIR-MNT changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 19990920 changed: hostmaster(a)ripe.net 20011019 source: RIPE Is this going to change? E.g. to: status: [mandatory] [single] [ ] The wording used in the draft seems to indicate [optional] [single] [ ]. I think some clarification would be helpful. Thanks, cheers, Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3 2

New draft: "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects"
by leo vegoda 25 Jul '02

25 Jul '02

Dear Colleagues, Thank you for the comments we have received on the draft document "New Values of the 'status:' attribute for inet6num Objects". We have revised it to incorporate the suggestions you have made. The meaning of the labels has been made clearer, in line with the comments received. ALLOCATED-BY-RIR - For allocations made by an RIR to an LIR. ALLOCATED-BY-LIR - For allocations made by an LIR or an LIR's downstream customer to another downstream organisation. ASSIGNED - For assignments made to End User sites The new draft is available from our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/new-value-status.html> We would welcome comments on this new draft until Thursday, 1 August 2002. All comments and suggestions should be sent to <lir-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC, Registration Services Assistant Manager

1 0