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.
Well, I think you have a valid point in that if we should start with this, we might as well do it post-factum as well. Problem then is that we need to automate this. And that will a task for the RIPE NCC, and require resources. So, I think for the distinction to make sense - we should first try and figure out how large the "current" problem is. See my previous posting, I think we need a comparison of the RIPE DB to a full BGP table. then we could pick a few AS:es and try and analys them.
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.
Yes. Actually I would suggest that we would make this a requirement for keeping and acquireing an AS. This would require a policy change though I guess and some tools to verify. See above.
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...
Well, portably I guess is an issue anyway as the database refer to each other (or do they only do that if there is no match? I am not really into the whois data...).
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.
If we take a few steps back in the discussion - we said (well at least I did..:) ) that a ISP would be contacted after [a] time and asked if they had used the AS. If not they would be given [b] time (unless they had come to the conclusion they did not needed it or could meet the timeline) to correct this. I would suggest that after [a] time they are required to make a statement along the suggested lines of : - Upstream - Peers - etc. Perhaps as with the current IP space useage form (after just having filled in one and trying to get it approved I am sure that is enough to scare most people away anyway...:) ). However, I suggest that then, after [b] time they need to prove that this is now in use. Why? Well, if we assume that [a] is six months and [b] is six months, they have had a year. In that time they should have got whatever they needed the AS for up and running.
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%...
Agreed, but it is also a question of how the cost really is. Compared to work we (well, the RIPE NCC) spend on IP space, some mechanisms here shouldn't matter to much... - kurtis -