On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 02:45:45PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
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 ASnumber 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.
Kurt, noBGP table check whatsoever can verify very valid setups like the one I described a few weeks back. (AS702 backup uplink using 702:80 community). What should the ASN holder do to prove the existance of this backup upstream? Take down their main link?
Contingent BGP announcements are valid. Our view should not be to hurt ISPs. If one comes along and says he is doing a backup link and can bring documentation from his backup upstream, it is up to RIPE to verify it and accept it. Not impossible.
Regards, Daniel
Hank Nussbacher