[53940] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Wed Dec 4 07:03:19 2002
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 07:01:07 -0500
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021202110551.03859ed8@127.0.0.1>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This topic came up on cisco-nsp, but was really more appropriate
here. Been meaning to post summaries when I got enough round tuits.
A suggestion was made there that the RIRs give a bgp feed of 'unused'
routes to interested parties such that they can be blackholed, etc.
Sounded like a lot of overhead and things which could go wrong to
me. Skipping over the arguments about who would/wouldn't modify
processes and would take such a feed, I wouldn't want to have to pay
for that infrastructure, its support and maintenance out of my
regsitry fees. I do think it makes LOADS of sense to have the
(un)allocations clearly visible in the IRR. Some of the RIRs do it
today for their 'greater aggregates' [eg, whois -h whois.ripe.net
82.0.0.0/8].
Sure, you'd still have providers ignoring the IRR, but it gets a
lot harder for them to whine about the time it takes to update
filters or the lack of automation if the data is in a standard
format in globally distributed DBs for which there are umpty public
tools. There's always the gripe about authentication. Perhaps
the IANA should set up a routing registry which merely publishes in
RPSL format the allocated/unallocated list
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) and the truly
paranoid can just consult *only* that registry for their
configuration magic? That would be a one-time hit for IANA [or
volunteers] to make the flat-file-to-RPSL code, and being a single-
source could be cyptographically signed/confirmed if needed.
Cheers,
Joe
--
crimson@sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo@gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp@rsuc.gweep.net
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
