[address-policy-wg] Cleaning up Unused AS Numbers

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Kai 'wusel' Siering <wusel+ml at uu.org>
wrote:

> Am 26.03.2017 um 22:20 schrieb Daniel Roesen:
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:32:35AM +0100, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but as a public ASN is to serve public inter-AS-uses,
> > Can you cite the policy requiring that?
>
> RFC 1930, referenced by ripe-679, states: "10. The Internet Assigned
> Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the following block of AS numbers for
> private use (not to be advertised on the global Internet): 64512 through
> 65535". Together with "9. AS Space exhaustion" it disencourages the use of
> public AS numbers for non-public use. And there is ripe-679' requirement of
> multihoming.
>

First, RFC 1930 has been updated by RFC 6996 and RFC 7300, ASNs 64512 -
65534 and 4200000000 - 4294967294 are now available for private use, and AS
65535 is not intended for private use.  Furthermore, the guidance in RFC
1930 is over twenty years old and does not account for 4-Byte (32 bit) ASNs
and the fact that there are now 4 Billion ASNs means that "AS Space
exhaustion" is no longer a realistic issue probably even in the long-run.



> >> So, you need a "new" *external* routing policy to receive a (public)
> ASN.
> > Yes. You seem to mistake "external" with "on the public Internet".
> "External" in BGP context is "with other ASN", that's it - not more, not
> less.
>
> Maybe I do, if so, most likely because of the connection initially drawn,
> "There are currently around 6,600 ASNs in our service region (held or
> sponsored by 2,682 LIRs) that are not being advertised in the routing
> system. This represents around 22% of the ~30,000 ASNs assigned by the RIPE
> NCC" as well as due to the reference to RFC 1930 in ripe-679.
>

Given the availability of ASN now days an overly strict interpretation of
an "external" routing policy to mean "on the public Internet" is not
necessary.  Has been or might need to be visible "on the public Internet"
or is visible to any other administrative domain is a more than
sufficiently strict definition of "external" routing policy, at least now
with 4 Billion ASNs.


> >> If your ASN does not show up in the global routing anymore, you
> obviously lost the need for that '"new" *external* routing policy', no?
> > No. Best regards, Daniel
>
> So, if a connection between "ASN received" and "ASN visible" does not
> exist, where's the case for this wg? RIPE NCC can carry out a db-based
> clean up on their own: keeping registration data up-to-date is already a
> requirement for resource holders (ripe-637).
> ...
> Regards,
> -kai
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170326/9872e7db/attachment.html>