[82868] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: as numbers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Sat Jul 30 16:08:52 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507302201170.17281@efes.iucc.ac.il>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Henk Uijterwaal <henk@ripe.net>,
Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:08:23 -0400
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 30 Jul 2005, at 15:03, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>
>> The RIPE NCC has hit strong resistance to reclamation, most often with
>> the argument that the ASes are used in inter-domain routing on the
>> Internet but our BGP data collectors just do not see the paths
>> concerned. It takes considerable effort to do reclamation properly
>> whithout putting the future user of any reclaimed number space at
>> risk!
>
> Anyone who uses the argument of inter-domain routing that are not seen
> by
> any data collectors on the Internet should be pointed at RFC1930 and
> told
> to renumber their private ASNs.
Just because public route collectors can't see use of an ASN, that
doesn't mean the ASN isn't in use; just because it can't be seen
doesn't mean it's private-use: it might still feature on routes
announced on the Internet, even if the routes don't propagate globally.
For a trivial example of this, consider a multilat route server at an
exchange point. Unless you measure from within (or downstream of) a
peer of the route server, you'll never see the AS number in an AS_PATH
attribute. It's fairly clear to me that this is not a suitable
candidate for private-use numbering, however.
Joe
