In message <YOWnQqD/X+EMPI5T@bench.sobornost.net>, Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net> wrote:
However, the following two restrictions are not optimal in my opinion.
Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing the *public* use of ASNs that have -never- been assigned by any RIR to any party?
Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing the *public* use of ASNs whose registrations have been revoked by the applicable RIR, e.g. due to either the non-payment of fees, or worse, due to outright fraud on the part of the relevant registrant?
For me this style of anthropomorphistic writing makes dialogue harder, for example the RIPE database lacks the ability to 'endorse' anything.
The presence of anything within the RIPE data base is effectively a public endorsement of that information. Does your bank hand out Monopoly{tm} money bills? No. Of course not. They have a reputation to protect. If the presence of a given route object within the RIPE data base is NOT an implicit endorsement of that route object by RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, then fine. In that case those un-endorsed "joke" route objects don't need to be in the RIPE data base. They can instead be published someplace else, like, for example, on Pastebin.com. I note that you say that disallowing route objects that refer to unassigned (but not reserved) ASNs would be "not optimal" byt you have deftly avoided responding to my eminently reasonable challenge: Show me. Show me even a single actual example where it does anything other than to dilute that value of the RIPE IRR to have it contain some *specific* route object which makes reference to some bogon ASN. In the absence of even a single concrete example where a "bogon" route object would be of any value to have in the RIPE IRR I stand by my prior assertion that arguments in favor of AS-bogon route objects are just a bunch of vapid hand waving, and that the very idea is merely a notion "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Regards, rfg