Wilfried, What would you suggest for a definition of "not in use"? I agree that we do need to define "not in use". Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:52 AM To: lir-wg@ripe.net Cc: woeber@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@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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~