[29464] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: using IRR tools for BGP route filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo - Network Architect)
Sun Jun 25 17:58:51 2000
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:56:47 -0400
From: Joe Provo - Network Architect <joe.provo@rcn.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000625175647.A27482@ultra.net>
Reply-To: joe.provo@rcn.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20000625070521.57D6010B25@kuji.off.connect.com.au>; from mrp@connect.com.au on Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 04:35:15PM +0930
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 04:35:15PM +0930, Mark Prior wrote:
[snip]
> It's not all that simple to do, although certainly some of the trash
> could be deleted, since it's not always the organisation "owning" the
> address space that announces it. Some process that compares the IR
> registry view to the current routing table view might be "better" but
> who would take on that task and under what mandate as its one thing to
> find the problems but it's an entirely different problem to actually
> fix it?
Monitoring BGP table-vs-IRR is no big deal; IPMA has been giving a view
into that for a long time. Giving anyone a good reason to fix their
errors is another issue entirely. Most of the players who care about
routing registries do so because they, their peers or upstreams use them.
The incentive for those who don't care/use them to start caring/using
them is what is lacking.
Both the push to self-maintained registries [eliminating the 'not
maintained here' paranoia] and the address-registry tie-in are good
moves to make RRs more of a standard-and-accepted thing with which even
curmudgeonly-types would have trouble arguing.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
