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. 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is insisting that the RIPE data base should be effectively endorsing the *public* use of ASNs whose registrations have been revoked by the applicable RIR, e.g. due to either the non-payment of fees, or worse, due to outright fraud on the part of the relevant registrant?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. Kind regards, Job