RE: [lir-wg] AS Number Policy
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:38:58 -0400
[snip]
>
> Yes. I had recently a lengthy "discussion" with RIPE hostmasters about
> a multihomed AS of a customer. Primary upstream with us, secondary
> upstream with AS702. Using 702:80 community to lower localpref within
> 702, making the backup link real backup. As 702 announces best path
> (which is via their peering to us to the customer), RIPE was unable to
> see the 702 backup announcement anywhere. Explanation of BGP basics by
> myself were not understood or ignored. Or both. They also did not
> contact AS702 for simple confirmation of what I've told them.
> Took three
> or four emails to get that finally sorted out. Whom do I bill
> those 30-45
> minutes to (rhetoric question)? ;->
>
This is another good example why AS number is originated but invisible
to the global routing table.
> End of the story was that they finally said "We have found AS21197 in
> the import policy of AS702 and going to close this ticket now." :-]]]
>
> IF they really want to enforce ASN assignment policy, they
> should REALLY
> have to have a clue about BGP. Looking at some random looking glasses
> or RIS data and not understanding it is NOT enough for a
> policy-enforcing agency. And someone should explain them the
> difference
> between a looking glass and a traceroute server.
>
> Let's say... Halabi as compulsary lecture for hostmasters who have to
> evaluate ASN assignment policy compliance. :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
It is almost impossible for RIPE NCC to look into all upstream ISP's routing
table
and verify that an AS is being used properly.
If RIPE NCC can't find a way to reduce the false alarm of AS verification,
the enforcement will become more likely an harassment.
Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@localhost
