[64022] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ix's & prefix registration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Tue Oct 14 13:06:11 2003
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0310140930050.16361-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Cc: exchange-ops@pch.net, <exchange-construction@pch.net>,
<nanog@merit.edu>, joshua sahala <joshua.ej.smith@usa.net>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:03:53 -0400
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 14 Oct 2003, at 12:36, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> 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.
The HKIX in Hong Kong maintains a an access-list per member on its
route server configuration, and mails out copies on a members list
periodically so that people can check that their filter is up-to-date.
The APE in Auckland and the WIX in Wellington, New Zealand both include
route servers which are well-used. Both route servers incorporate route
filters for peers which are built from a citylink-operated IRR-like
database which speaks RPSL.
So while none of these examples illustrate exchange operators requiring
any kind of registration of routes (there are no restrictions on direct
peering sessions across the exchanges, for example) the popularity of
the route servers on these exchanges provides some incentive for peers
to publish their export policies.
These might be unusual examples, of course. I have done no great survey.
Joe
