[49979] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Scalzo)
Mon Jul 15 01:58:53 2002
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:58:44 -0400
From: "Frank Scalzo" <frank.scalzo@amerinex.net>
To: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: "Stephen Stuart" <stuart@tech.org>, <nanog@merit.edu>,
"Paul Schultz" <pschultz@pschultz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
See now we are back to the catch 22 that is IRR. No one will use it =
because the data isnt there, and no one will put the data into it =
because no one uses it.
I think the way to get IRR into the real world production realm, is to =
really drive home the issue w/IPV6.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:ras@e-gerbil.net]
Sent: Sat 7/13/2002 10:20 PM
To: Frank Scalzo
Cc: Stephen Stuart; nanog@merit.edu; Paul Schultz
Subject: Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:21:16PM -0400, Frank Scalzo wrote:
>
> The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed
> solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the
> routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards
> another bad things happen. It would be nice if there was a supportable
> way to only allow one isp to advertise appropriate routes to another.
> The IRR stuff is a neat idea but I dont think many ISPs trust it =
enough
> to use it to build ACLs.
If everyone maintained current IRR entries, it would work just fine. The =
real problem is there are still a lot of networks who's idea of =
filtering=20
their customers is a prefix-limit or a filter you have to call or email =
in=20
manually.
The only people who actually maintain accurate IRR entries (other than =
the=20
occational net kook) are those whose transit depends on it. Trying to=20
convert an existing customer base to IRR is a nightmarish task, some of=20
these large established providers will probably NEVER do it unless there =
is some actual motivation.
Supposidly Level 3 requires IRR filtering on their peers, but do they
actually try to enforce this? I know they do an excellent job =
maintaining
their own IRR entries, but I'm certain they peer with people who don't
have a current db. Probably not, since the vast majority of their =
current
peers don't meet their current peering requirements. :)
--=20
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> =
http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE =
B6)
