[148625] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RIS raw data
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Thu Jan 19 16:35:48 2012
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:34:49 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Shane Amante <shane@castlepoint.net>
In-Reply-To: <85D843DC-9481-47E1-904A-035C758A66DE@castlepoint.net>
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
> Please don't conflate the policy mechanisms enabled by the IRR policy
> *language*/specification itself with the *data* contained in the IRR
i don't. the former is called rpsl.
>> 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?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-08
> 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.
but not orthogonal to the op's direct question.
randy
