[1269] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Wed Dec 13 17:23:11 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: cook@cookreport.com
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:05:38 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, jon@branch.com, dsiegel@rtd.com, dmbarton@mci.net,
smd@chops.icp.net, freedman@netaxs.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951213145528.23250E-100000@tigger.jvnc.net> from "Gordon Cook" at Dec 13, 95 03:00:37 pm
>
> OK. So WHY AREN"T people using the routing registry? If they did would
> they be able to get around individual peering and transit agreements? Is
> it a chicken and egg thing. IE what percentage of global routes does the
> registry have? how does the registry as it stands now save people time,
> trouble or money?
>
for answers to some of these questions, I would point you
at the following URL:
http://www.merit.edu/routing.arbiter/RA/index.html
The IRR has little to do with peering & transit, other
than to reflect agreements.
Other questions will have to be answered by people in
the community. Many people do register in the IRR.
Those that don't, won't for a variety of reasons. For some,
there is an unwillingness to trust a thirdparty operator
coupled with no desire to run a portion of the registry in-house.
When these two conditions are found in a large-scale provider,
the concept and implementation of the Internet RR are
frustrated to the extent that the non-participating provider
becomes increasingly unreachable/understandable. They
are relegated to peridoc public postings to mailing lists
for definitions of their routing policies.
I expect that the example set by other large-scale providers
would be an incentive. Running a section of the IRR inhouse
shows a spirit of cooperation and a desire to share in the
global internet. Refusal to do so appears, at least to me,
to be an arrogant, egotistical view about any specific providers
importance to a working global internet.
--bill
