[23654] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IRRs [was Re: OPS: BGP spew from ASN 7374]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Thu Apr 8 09:17:51 1999
From: Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net>
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 1999 08:39:12 EDT."
<370CA370.892066DD@senie.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:17:30 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > * Several people still peer via the route servers
> > * Several transits filter their customers by RADB or a private RADB
> > which feeds the IRR.
>
> Care to name names?
route servers: see http://www.rsng.net/ for a list
Transits - I did a survey on NANOG a few months ago as to who filtered
and how (both peers and customers). About 50% of those who replied
used RADB or another similar database (possibly their own, like
CA*NET, MCI/CW, Level3 etc.) for filtering either peers or customers.
However, I suspect this number is heavilly skewed in favour of vocal
NANOG people who like IRRs. Filtering customers was way more prevalent
than filtering peers.
I said I'd repost the stuff anonymously, but some contributors often
post here and thus may chose to answer your question on or off list.
> Connectivity failures can and do result when RADB records are not
> properly updated, which does happen from time to time. They also
> happened when records WERE properly updated, but the changes made were
> deemed "too radical" by the software translating the RADB entries into
> internal databases. Moving a portable prefix from one ASN to another
> qualified as "too radical" a change, despite it being a semi common
> occurrence.
And various people had different solutions to this, the most common
being a sort of 2 of 3 approach (RADB change, plus sanity algorithm,
plus sanity person).
> > If you do either of the above, chaning a public IRR (once) is easier
> > than changing n private databases. The alternative is no filtering.
> > Hopefully natural selection will take its course on transits who
> > do this on a regular basis.
>
> If common and consistent tools and rules were used to build filters from
> a SINGLE public database, and if the database site listed contact
> information and test addresses for each network using the database, I
> think folks could live with that.
Well if they could agree on a routing policy language, that would be a
fine start.
--
Alex Bligh
GX Networks (formerly Xara Networks)
