BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI

Sun Nov 28 20:45:33 UTC 2004

On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 09:27:40PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> >This is good, but it should also happen for ASN's that are already
> >active. An check for active use of the ASN and conforming to the 
> >current
> >rules every 6 months should be a nice thing.
> 
> Good luck trying to get those AS numbers back when they are ok by the 
> rules as per the assignment, just not the current ones. This kind of 
> stuff is why parents want their kids to go to law school.

If such a check rules an ASN as 'not-ok' the owner of the ASN ofcourse
always should substantiate his right for an ASN. If the owner can't
provide evidence that he uses this ASN rightfully it should be revoked.

> Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16 
> bits at some point anyway.

I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter, there
is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issue that
created them in the first place.

> Oh, and just for fun: tell me if you see AS12945 in your routing table. 
> I can assure you that this AS number was assigned and is still used in 
> full compliance with RIPE policies.

* 195.193.163.0/24        195.69.144.125		12945 I

As you can see there is evidence to substantiate your claim. That you
have no route: object and are advertising UUNet space under another ASN
to specific peers is something else.

-- 
Cliff Albert <cliff at oisec.net>