[64019] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ix's & prefix registration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Tue Oct 14 12:46:39 2003
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
To: joshua sahala <joshua.ej.smith@usa.net>
Cc: exchange-ops@pch.net, <exchange-construction@pch.net>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <740HJNqCu9056S03.1066148900@uwdvg003.cms.usa.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, joshua sahala wrote:
> i was wondering if there were some published docs online regarding the
> registration of route objects and membership at an ix - specifically,
> do ixp's around the world require that their members register all of
> their route objects prior to being allowed to exchange traffic at the
> ix?
No, this is not a common practice, although a few of the 350 exchanges out
there may do so.
> is it left up to the other providers at the ix to verify that they
> are peering with someone who registers their objects?
Yes, some ISPs verify that their peers' announcements and IRR registered
prefixes match. The vast majority do not.
> is this something that an ix could/should worry about?
Absolutely not, as that intrudes upon the terms of the commercial
relationship between the individual members of the exchange.
Besides which, the IX has no way of observing or enforcing any such policy
without violating the privacy of the members. There is, of course, no
reason to believe that members will advertize the same prefixes to a
looking-glass, even a private and mandatory one, that they advertize
amongst themselves. This is a rat's nest that there's no motive for
jumping into.
> i know that many providers around the world are increasingly requiring
> registration
Actually, this trend has been in the opposite direction, decreasing
interest in IRRs, for the past six or eight years, to my observation.
Perhaps others believe otherwise.
-Bill
