[148596] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIS raw data
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shane Amante)
Thu Jan 19 10:26:54 2012
From: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2sjjbsvkr.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:26:05 -0700
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>,
andra.lutu@imdea.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> In some cases I saw the export policy ANNOUNCE ANY, is this =
consistent
>> with a particular AS behaving like the RIPE AS was its customer?
>=20
> well, if i was to take that literally, that would include internal
> prefixes, e.g. some of p2p inter-router links, loopbacks, ...
>=20
> of course, taking anything from the IRR literally is na=EFve at best.
Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy =
*language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR ...
> some years back, i asked for a *simple minimal* tagging of =
announcements
> to route views, just peer, customer, internal. it got ietfed to utter
> uselessness, with more crap welded on to it than envisioned in mad =
max.
Wrt your last paragraph: care to share a link the I-D (or, RFC) that you =
allude to above? =20
I think your last paragraph is alluding to tagging routes with standard =
BGP communities, based on your "simple minimal" criteria, before they =
are sent to route-views. That strikes me as potentially orthogonal to =
issues with the present data in the IRR.
-shane=
