[29466] in North American Network Operators' Group
Using RPSL in real life with the IRR's
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Julian Eccli)
Mon Jun 26 03:36:20 2000
Message-ID: <00b701bfdf41$30db2600$b7bd0118@irvn1.occa.home.com>
From: "Julian Eccli" <jeccli@ubnetworks.net>
To: "NANOG LISTSERV" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 00:36:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BFDF06.83AB4260"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BFDF06.83AB4260
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am in the process of setting up a peering session at the NASA MAE-WEST =
exchange on their NAP network and to do this I had to register and =
create my companies mainter objects, AS, and Policy info.
I have read through RFC-2622 and RFC-2650 and find the RPSL language to =
be powerful, although a tad confusing at times.=20
To help me understand and also ensure I am correct with my =
interpretation of RPSL I queried the whois.radb.net database and started =
to examine many of the large carriers objects. What I noticed is not a =
single one I have run across does more than implement a very basic =
import and export policy. Considering the posibilities of abuse and =
mistakes I would assume the larger/medium carriers would have someone =
dedicated full time to ensure the flood gates aren't open to their =
networks and their clients.
My real question is: Can anyone point me to a policy(s) that use more =
than the general import/export policies such as import: from AS#### =
action pref=3D100; accept AS#### (or usually ANY) AND NOT {0.0.0.0/0}, =
etc, etc, etc.
If I have interpreted RFC-2622 correctly for what the language can do it =
seems that many of the problems in the discussion 'using IRR tools for =
BGP route filtering' would be under much tighter policy control. Of =
course if the IRR databases were more up to date, many of the queries I =
made had dates that said they had not been changed since 1994.
Regards,
Julian
------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BFDF06.83AB4260
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4030.2400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am in the process of setting up a =
peering session=20
at the NASA MAE-WEST exchange on their NAP network and to do this I had =
to=20
register and create my companies mainter objects, AS, and Policy=20
info.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have read through RFC-2622 and =
RFC-2650 and find=20
the RPSL language to be powerful, although a tad confusing at=20
times. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To help me understand and also ensure I =
am correct=20
with my interpretation of RPSL I queried the whois.radb.net database and =
started=20
to examine many of the large carriers objects. What I noticed is =
not a=20
single one I have run across does more than implement a very basic =
import and=20
export policy. Considering the posibilities of abuse and =
mistakes I=20
would assume the larger/medium carriers would have someone dedicated =
full time=20
to ensure the flood gates aren't open to their networks and their=20
clients.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My real question is: Can anyone =
point me to a=20
policy(s) that use more than the general import/export policies such as =
import:=20
from AS#### action pref=3D100; accept AS#### (or usually ANY) AND NOT =
{0.0.0.0/0},=20
etc, etc, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If I have interpreted RFC-2622 =
correctly for what=20
the language can do it seems that many of the problems in the discussion =
'<FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">using IRR tools for BGP route filtering' would =
be under=20
much tighter policy control. Of course if the IRR databases were =
more up=20
to date, many of the queries I made had dates that said they had not =
been=20
changed since 1994.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Julian</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00B4_01BFDF06.83AB4260--
