Hi Ed, I think that AS23456 should be excluded as I can't think of any good reason for having such a route object and seemingly no one else either as there are none currently. https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?bflag=false&dflag=false&inverse=origin&rflag=true&searchtext=AS23456&source=RIPE So assuming that I didn't mess up the query and that there are in fact none currently, I think it is completely reasonable to exclude AS23456 as while not listed as "reserved" it is reserved for a specific internal (unlike AS112) use case. -Cynthia On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 4:05 PM Edward Shryane via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Job,
On 7 Jul 2021, at 15:08, Job Snijders via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Working Group,
I'd like to clarify my position, Ronald lists three restrictions, the totality of those restrictions is what I consider brittle.
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg wrote:
Who is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing the *public* use of ASNs that are reserved, and that have been reserved, by various RFC(s), since time immemorial (e.g. 65535)?
Preventing object creation where the origin AS is any of the following
0 # RFC 7607 23456 # RFC 4893 AS_TRANS 64496..64511 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs 64512..65534 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs 65535 # RFC 7300 Last 16 bit ASN 65536..65551 # RFC 5398 and documentation/example ASNs 65552..131071 # RFC IANA reserved ASNs 4200000000..4294967294 # RFC 6996 Private ASNs 4294967295 # RFC 7300 Last 32 bit ASN
seems reasonable to me, I believe that in the Hosted RPKI environment similar restrictions apply.
Currently it is not possible to create a route(6) in the RIPE database with a 'reserved' AS number according to: https://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
which includes 0,64496-131071,4200000000-4294967295
So 23456 is *not* excluded, but it can be if the DB-WG agrees.
Regards Ed Shryane RIPE NCC