At 09:04 31/08/00 +0100, Willy Calderon wrote: Yes, I got hit by this last week after having filed over 80 ASN requests with no problem. Fortunately, we require a signed fax on letterhead from the requestor stating the 2 peers as well as other details. Even so, we have had about 5 cases of organizations either never announcing the ASN or reverting to being single homed. We continue to chase after those that do not use their ASN properly and have returned a few ASN to RIPE in the past and have 2-3 in the return process now as well. I would imagine that sites that do not require a signed document from a VP level or higher from the company asking for the ASN will incur an even higher rate than the 6% we have of troublemakers. I know that RIPE has started to scan the major peering sites to see if ASNs assigned are indeed multihomed (we have been doing that for the past 2 years - on a quarterly basis for all ASN's assigned) and I guess they are finding too many not being used, so they have toughened their ASN assignment policies. ASNs are also a finite resource - just like a /19. -Hank
Good morning,
We filed a request for an AS Number several weeks ago. Ticket number is NCC#2000085127. Having finally receiving initial response from RIPE late last week, we were then asked to provide contact details for the ISP that we had placed in our application. The reason being that RIPE would be contacting them in their time to confirm that they will accept peering and allow our PA space. Presumably this will take another few weeks for them to verify that indeed our application was accurate and said ISP has agreed to accept our peering details. As this is urgent, I'm quite concerned whether or not this is the norm now at RIPE.
Has this happened to anyone else? That is, has their ASN application been needlessly delayed like this?
Thanks,
Willy Calderon