[DBWG] RIPE proposed changes to the routing registry

[Job Snijders]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 01:02:36PM +0400, Daniel Shaw wrote:
> So, yes, while the end result is allowed, the current process is that
> the manual step by the person is some check or verification that the
> while the ASN may be non-AFRINIC, it is still and ASN that is
> allocated by some RIR and at that RIR has some association
> with/to/from the person or organisation that has requested the
> route(6) object. In other words some form of manual authentication.
> 
> So yes, AFRINIC allows (some) route-objects in the AFRINIC IRR where
> the ASN in the "origin:" is a non-AFRINIC ASN. But not *any*
> non-AFRINIC ASN, or even any ASN.

I see. Thanks for the elaboration.

> Of course, the necessity of this at all is debatable. (As you point
> out on the dbwg at afrinic.net list).
> 
> However, given that a check like this *is* being done today, so far
> it's been felt easier to have a human do it, than to automate around
> all the edge cases. Like for example where the "foreign" ASN is
> registered to a subsidiary or parent company, so there is no *direct*
> one-to-one mapping of Org name in WHOIS, and knowledge of
> multi-national business relationships may be needed to determine the
> link.

You'll probably only want to block obvious garbage, such as rejecting
Bogon ASNs http://as2914.net/bogon_asns/configuration_examples.txt, and
just allow the rest :-)

Kind regards,

Job