Guten Tag, I hope this is the correct forum - if not please direct me to a more appropriate one. After following the discussion for a while I am still unsure about the exact consequences of the activation of RFC2725 on 23-Apr-2001. I will try to summarize my understanding: Please check this and correct me where necessary. You will find a list of open questions at the bottom of this mail. As Frank Bohnsack wrote in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/current/msg00090.html AS numbers are allocated to regional registries as shown in http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/as-numbers and the IPv4 address space allocated to various registries as shown in http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/ipv4-address-space RFC2725 states in section 9.9 that during addition of an inetnum the most specific matching inetnum is being searched to find the required authentication. During addition of a route the aut-num of the originating AS and either a most specific matching inetnum or a most specific matching route is being searched to find the required authentication. This leaves UUNET in a curious situation. For example, UUNET uses AS 702 which is in the range 1 - 1876 allocated by the ARIN and the inetnum 193.96.0.0/13 which is in 193.0.0.0/8 allocated by the RIPE. With RFC2725 in place UUNET would have its aut-num record in a different registry than its inetnum, rendering it impossible to add routes for the 193.0.0.0/8. There are probably more complications caused by moving data from one registry to another. For example, some people will continue to expect information at the original registry because they did not prepare for RFC2725, breaking mechanisms such as automatic prefix filter creation. Andrei Robachevsky presented two suggestions in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/current/msg00095.html Suggestion 1 means that RIPE will implement changes so that RFC2725 will be in effect for AS numbers and IP address space allocated by RIPE only. No checks according to RFC2725 will be done for all other AS numbers and IP address space. Suggestion 2 means that there will be encompassing inetnum objects which contain the address ranges assigned to other registries than RIPE. These objects will have a maintainer with NONE authentication so that everybody can add routes within these inetnum which refer to their own aut-num records. No decision has been made on whether one of the suggestion and, if so, which of them will be implemented. So far my understanding. Please review - if it is completely wrong I hope that I at least amused you. ;-) Thank you for your help! Holger Münx EMEA Access & Backbone Networks UUNET Deutschland GmbH Tel. +49 231 972 0 Sebrathweg 20 Fax. +49 231 972 1111 44149 Dortmund, Germany Holger.Muenx@de.uu.net http://www.de.uu.net/