[61237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Lazy Engineers and Viable Excuses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Tue Aug 26 12:13:10 2003
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:12:30 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20030826141057.GD29112@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:10:57AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:55:30AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > Yes, it is that hard. Sadly, almost everyone I see push the IRR
> > > works for a small ISP. And at least half of those work for a small
> > > ISP in Europe.
> >
> > C&W, Level3, Global Crossing and NTT/Verio are small isps?
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but they all use the IRR to filter
> customers. That's a fine application of the IRR, and one I encourage.
> I don't think any of them use the IRR to filter peers. Indeed, I
> can provde they don't filter certian big peers due to the fact they
> don't register thier routes at all. :)
Global Crossing doesn't use the IRR to filter their BGP speaking
customers, every prefix-list update gets touched by a human. While their
response time is good, and they're generally friendly people, they do have
a tendancy to prove that they are human by forgetting or typoing a random
route with nearly every other update. When you start getting into the
hundreds of routes, personally I will go through the trouble to maintain
IRR entries any day vs letting humans break stuff.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
