Hi Job, > On 7 Jul 2021, at 15:08, Job Snijders via db-wg <[email protected]> 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
