On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:09:21AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:

I *know* that this discussion has gone on, but I still state that an *unused* AS is not the same as one which is not *multihomed*.

Agreed. Denesh -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net Nominet PAB Member ; co-Chair RIPE LIR-WG

Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

IMHO :

...

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.

yes, AND to real announcements.

i second that.

...

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.

I suggest revoking as-numbers from isps not using their as number for a period of 12 months. I personally know some isps which _never_ used the as-number assigned to them. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

Sebastian Willing wrote:

I'ld suggest to first use all AS-# allocated to RIPE. Then re-use the AS-# which has the oldest revoke-date (but only if this date is older than one year or so).

Thats an good suggestion too. I dont know if this is out-of-scope of this discussion, but i would suggest that a LIR, which applies for an AS-Num, should be required to fax a written peering agreement signed by at least 2 upstream-providers. This should reduce the the number of initialy unused as-nos somewhat. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

Peter Galbavy wrote:

...

I dont know if this is out-of-scope of this discussion, but i would suggest that a LIR, which applies for an AS-Num, should be required to fax a written peering agreement signed by at least 2 upstream-providers.

Erm, I suspect that the regulatory organisation might get interested in this kind of policy. And why peering, most upstream services are not 'peering' but paid for transit.

I menat that in the traditional meaning of a BGP4-Session. But youre right, its a transit agreement.

You say that my business should depend on the 'kindness' of my service provider filling in a form ?

Doesnt your business depend on your upstreams signing contracts about transit with you and providing the agreed service? If an ISP sells transit to you he will also be able to sign a simple form stating that you will have a BGP4 Session with him. Therefore i dont c where the requirement of a signed "bgp4 session with transit" agreement will have a bad impact on business.

In general, small providers are in a better position to buy BGP transit services when they already >have< and AS and IP space. If you go to a large upstream they will try to cross-sell you away from BGP transit in order to lock you in to themselves.

Sure, the bug upstream dont want you to become an independant AS. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

Hi, Peter Galbavy wrote:

Most contracts are commercially confidential and also sensitive. I do not expect either myself of my customers or suppliers to provide this to RIPE 'just because'.

Me neither. I never said that anyone should copies of the contracts to the RIPE. I did mean a simple form like: ----------- 8< ----------------- 8< -------------------- 8< --------------- Lir: eu.newlir <Lir Adress Data etc> Will receive ip-transit and BGP4-Peering from the follwing ISPs within X Months: ISP-A ISP-B <Adress etc> <Adress etc.> Signature Signature --------- ---------- ----------- 8< ----------------- 8< -------------------- 8< --------------- I hope you get what i mean.

Also, we should collectively remember that each country the RIPE operates in may have different legal requirements and regulatory frameworks. Most of the EU is similar, but as an anecdote, I believe RIPE still requires a 'chamber of commerce' certificate ?

As far as i remember they require _some_ formal writtem paper about the jurisdictional existance of a company which wants to become a LIR. The "chamber of commerce" certificate is AFAIK not neccessary. You can even get away without any certificate i think.

[..] Try to convince a hidebound beaurocrat stuck in a small office on Singel that though. Why should RIPE dictate my local business decisions ?

I fail to c where this really hinders your business. On the other hand i can really understand that you want to keep the formal, bureaucratic stuff like signed forms low :) This proposal just came out of my experiences while working with or for various ISPs in Europe where i often noticed that ISPs obtained AS-Nums allthough they didnt needed them then, and most of them dont use them today. All they hear is that the AS-Number supply is limted, AS-Numbers are for free => and they are out to get one => Results in unused AS-Numbers. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

Hi, Sebastian Willing wrote:

When starting as a LIR, you don't always have your upstreams. When we applied for LIR status we had two upstreams handy, with signed contracts and everything. At the time we finally got our AS, one of the upstreams was no longer existent. Today, providers, LIRs and upstreams come and go so fast.

Sure, becoming a LIR and obtaining an AS-Number are two very different things. You dont need to be a LIR to get an AS-Number. You can apply for an AS-Number as soon as you have routeable ip-space and 2 upstreams for BGP4 peering. (Please correct me if they did change that recently)

To keep the administrative overhead small, I'ld suggest to let the new AS- owner show at least two agreements within "x" month after the assignment of the AS-# only if there are less than two verified peerings. I'ld see a verified peering as a record in both AS's whois-entry _and_ seen on the RIPE BGP-router (or on some other "neutral" point, like EP routers).

If the RIPE will check for active announcements of AS-Nums there is no real need for a written proof for the BGP4-upstreams, thats right. But IMO, the rquirement of a written verification will cut down the number of as-numbers which will get revoked later on. best regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:51:42PM +0200, Sebastian Willing wrote:

...

the AS-# only if there are less than two verified peerings. I'ld see a verified peering as a record in both AS's whois-entry _and_ seen on the RIPE BGP-router (or on some other "neutral" point, like EP routers).

The latter (BGP announcement verification) is simply not doable. We already discussed that in length.

We did but I do not recall that beeing the conclusion..:) Anyway, I think that everyone have suggested to do both with a OR in between. 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. RIPE should be able to verify that this is true. - kurtis - - kurtis -

On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:38:16PM +0200, Arnd Vehling wrote:

I dont know if this is out-of-scope of this discussion, but i would suggest that a LIR, which applies for an AS-Num, should be required to fax a written peering agreement signed by at least 2 upstream-providers.

I am not so sure about this. There are many business plans which require the operations to be set up before going to get the 'peering' arrangements done. In these cases, who to multihome/BGP-peer with has not been decided, even though it is in the plans to do so as soon as possible. In addition, there are certain peers who do not require any contract or signed document. -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net Nominet PAB Member ; co-Chair RIPE LIR-WG

Peter Galbavy wrote:

...

In addition, there are certain peers who do not require any contract or signed document.

Like me, for example.

As i said: I dont want anybody to send in _contracts_. I just thought it would be a good idea to require a _simple_form_ with signatures of at least 2 upstreams because this will cut down the number of unused AS-Nums before they are delegated. Therefore cutting down RIPEs work recollecting them. But i see that most of you are not very fond of this idea :) regards, Arnd -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av@nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212