[arin-ppml] 2-byte ASN policy

[John Curran]

On Apr 4, 2016, at 8:17 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org<mailto:jlewis at lewis.org>> wrote:

If ARIN has a large pool of ASNs which it believes ARIN is responsible for, and are not being paid for, i.e. ASN squatters, then WTH are these ASN's not published in whois as Unused/Reserved/Reclaimed/whatever term/language ARIN comes up with that clearly identifies the ASN as not belonging to whoever might be trying to use it?  That just might help deter transit providers from allowing customers to use them.  An automated periodic email to peeringdb/whois contacts for the immediate upstream ASNs would at least notify/remind networks that they're providing transit to an org squatting on an ASN.

Jon -

   ARIN could undertake automation to monitor the appearance of ASN’s
   (or address blocks, for that matter) in the global routing tables and then
   send (unrequested) email to the contacts for the appropriate network.

   (I will note that much of this information is already being monitored,
   and reported on, at http://www.cidr-report.org , but those ISPs who
   really care about such and would act on the results are precisely the
   ones who least likely to be the problem…)

   If you wish us to proceed as suggested, please writeup a brief suggestion
   at <https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/acsp.html> and we will review it
   and post for discussion on aria-consult (as it is quite distinct from the current
   thread here on PPML regarding whether any policy change for 2-Byte ASN’s
   is desirable.)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160405/b2a19fd8/attachment.htm>