Re: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management
I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are multihomed. So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness) Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs. Regards as On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:27 PM Arturo Servin <arturolev@google.com> wrote:
I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are multihomed.
So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness)
Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs.
Regards as
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Are these setups still multihome?
Regardsm
Arash Naderpour
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM Mike Bromwich < mike.bromwich@stacuity.com> wrote:
Hi,
One other aspect to consider - there are situations where public ASNs (and addresses) are required - but not directly connected to the Internet. Therefore, they do not appear in the Internet routing tables but are legitimately used elsewhere.
For example, in our field (mobile cellular networks) mobile operators are connected using the IPX network as managed by the GSMA. This is distinct from the Internet but public ASNs and addresses are required.
The relevant guidelines from the GSMA: https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/IR.40-v8.0.pdf
'The GSMA worked closely with the all the RIR communities (RIPE NCC, ARIN and APNIC) to develop and produce the early versions of this document. This was essential to ensure that the proposed guidelines to the Service Providers associated with requesting and implementing Public addresses are aligned with the existing policies and procedures of the RIR community.'
'New Public address space assignment must be requested by Service Providers and IPX Providers from the appropriate LIR/NIR/DR using existing procedures supported by its respective serving RIR.
This document can be used as part of the request submitted by the Service Provider as a source of reference to help explain the requirement for Public address space.'
Perhaps there are other such networks which work in the same way? Perhaps there should be a mechanism to record or report that resources are in use elsewhere and so should not be recovered?
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management
Dear colleagues,
At RIPE 86, we shared some observations regarding Autonomous System Number (ASN) requests and usage [1].
We see an increasing number of ASN requests coming from both inside and outside of our service region. This seems to be driven primarily by the low cost and ease of receiving an ASN from the RIPE NCC. The downside is that we also see a significant decrease in responsible resource management by these resource holders. A large number of ASNs are never used or become abandoned after a short period.
Some data: in the last two years, we have provided 4,186 ASNs (between March 2021 and February 2023). Of this amount, we can see that 1,478 ASNs (more than 35%) do not appear to be in use, as they are not visible in the routing system.
Looking at total numbers, we have issued almost 38,000 ASNs, of which more than 8,000 (~20%) are not visible.
This growing trend not only creates avoidable work for Registration Services and added costs for the membership, we believe it also undermines the goal of responsible management of Internet number resources within our service region.
As the membership voted against an annual service fee for ASNs at the recent RIPE NCC General Meeting, I would like to ask the working group for guidance on how resource holders can be motivated to manage their ASNs responsibly and how the RIPE NCC can provide support for this.
We also plan to intensify our ongoing project to clean up unused Autonomous System (AS) Numbers [2]. Almost 2,000 unused ASNs have been recovered as part of this work so far. Do you support our approach here? And are there other ways we could improve the situation? Perhaps you could add clarification on requesting and returning ASNs in the relevant RIPE policy, or maybe we could give a stronger mandate and responsibility to the sponsoring LIRs.
If you have an ASN registered to you that you don’t need anymore, you can always contact us through the LIR Portal or via your sponsoring LIR and we will arrange for the return of this resource.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
[1]
https://ripe86.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/82-RIPE86-Feeback-f...
[2] https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/as-numbers/as-number-clean-up
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg --
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
It appears that we have two distinct types of ASN allocation: those that are publicly visible and those that remain unseen even when in use. To address this, I propose that the NCC introduces a new practice during ASN allocation. This practice would involve inquiring about the intended visibility of the allocated ASN. If a user claims that the ASN will be publicly visible but no visible activity is observed within a designated period (eg. 1 year), the NCC should initiate multiple reminders asking for confirmation of their plans to utilize the ASN in the future. In the event of no reply or confirmation, the process of deregistering the ASN can be initiated. This approach would help ensure that ASNs are allocated appropriately and promote responsible usage within the community. Regards, Arash On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:33 PM Arturo Servin via address-policy-wg < address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are multihomed.
So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness)
Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs.
Regards as
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:27 PM Arturo Servin <arturolev@google.com> wrote:
I cannot answer for Mike, but for those that I know, yes, those are multihomed.
So there is a legitimate use of an ASN that there isn't in the Internet (you need a public one to guarantee uniqueness)
Regarding the topic, I do not think that RIPE NCC needs to spend time trying to recover unseen (but not for sure unused) ASNs.
Regards as
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 1:21 PM Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc@parsun.com> wrote:
Hi Mike,
Are these setups still multihome?
Regardsm
Arash Naderpour
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM Mike Bromwich < mike.bromwich@stacuity.com> wrote:
Hi,
One other aspect to consider - there are situations where public ASNs (and addresses) are required - but not directly connected to the Internet. Therefore, they do not appear in the Internet routing tables but are legitimately used elsewhere.
For example, in our field (mobile cellular networks) mobile operators are connected using the IPX network as managed by the GSMA. This is distinct from the Internet but public ASNs and addresses are required.
The relevant guidelines from the GSMA: https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/IR.40-v8.0.pdf
'The GSMA worked closely with the all the RIR communities (RIPE NCC, ARIN and APNIC) to develop and produce the early versions of this document. This was essential to ensure that the proposed guidelines to the Service Providers associated with requesting and implementing Public addresses are aligned with the existing policies and procedures of the RIR community.'
'New Public address space assignment must be requested by Service Providers and IPX Providers from the appropriate LIR/NIR/DR using existing procedures supported by its respective serving RIR.
This document can be used as part of the request submitted by the Service Provider as a source of reference to help explain the requirement for Public address space.'
Perhaps there are other such networks which work in the same way? Perhaps there should be a mechanism to record or report that resources are in use elsewhere and so should not be recovered?
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Marco Schmidt Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 2:31 PM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] Input Requested: How to Ensure Responsible ASN Resource Management
Dear colleagues,
At RIPE 86, we shared some observations regarding Autonomous System Number (ASN) requests and usage [1].
We see an increasing number of ASN requests coming from both inside and outside of our service region. This seems to be driven primarily by the low cost and ease of receiving an ASN from the RIPE NCC. The downside is that we also see a significant decrease in responsible resource management by these resource holders. A large number of ASNs are never used or become abandoned after a short period.
Some data: in the last two years, we have provided 4,186 ASNs (between March 2021 and February 2023). Of this amount, we can see that 1,478 ASNs (more than 35%) do not appear to be in use, as they are not visible in the routing system.
Looking at total numbers, we have issued almost 38,000 ASNs, of which more than 8,000 (~20%) are not visible.
This growing trend not only creates avoidable work for Registration Services and added costs for the membership, we believe it also undermines the goal of responsible management of Internet number resources within our service region.
As the membership voted against an annual service fee for ASNs at the recent RIPE NCC General Meeting, I would like to ask the working group for guidance on how resource holders can be motivated to manage their ASNs responsibly and how the RIPE NCC can provide support for this.
We also plan to intensify our ongoing project to clean up unused Autonomous System (AS) Numbers [2]. Almost 2,000 unused ASNs have been recovered as part of this work so far. Do you support our approach here? And are there other ways we could improve the situation? Perhaps you could add clarification on requesting and returning ASNs in the relevant RIPE policy, or maybe we could give a stronger mandate and responsibility to the sponsoring LIRs.
If you have an ASN registered to you that you don’t need anymore, you can always contact us through the LIR Portal or via your sponsoring LIR and we will arrange for the return of this resource.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
[1]
https://ripe86.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/82-RIPE86-Feeback-f...
[2] https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/as-numbers/as-number-clean-up
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg --
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
participants (2)
-
Arash Naderpour -
Arturo Servin