Not really important, but just to avoid being counted as agreeing :-)
Horrible thought? :)
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" ?
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?
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.
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. Basically RIPE could then check assigned AS:es to registred. Still, the object does not have to be upto-date or actually reflecting anything. 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. Best regards, - kurtis -