L. Sean Kennedy
liam at nic.near.net
Tue Dec 7 21:13:23 UTC 1993
Thanks for collecting this information. We have discussed this offline
with another provider, and agree that it is important to not only collect
this information, but crucial to disclose it to help analyze Cidr deployment
I have added a disclaimer to the top of my questionaire.
I think the results of the questionaire should be made available to
bgpd, and if possible add it to the policy whois server on prdb.merit.edu.
The information collected is important for future routing design in the
Internet, and considered part of the NSFnet policy routing database. The
information maybe disclosed much in the manner that Merit currently
provides policy information for networks, and ASes-- reports, whois,
and to mailing lists.
1. Name of Your Network: NEARnet
2. The AS number(s) of your Network: 560
3. Routing information currently imported from NSFNET/ANSnet:
B, default plus specific routes.
4. If you import explicit routes from NSFNET/ANSnet, is it a requirement
for your routing design (y/n)?
5. When NSFNET/ANSnet becomes CIDR capable, do you expect to be able to
peer via BGP4 and accept CIDR aggregates? (y/n)
We will be peering with 3 Cisco AGS routers.
1st qtr, 1993 (when gated support for aggregate is deployed, and implemented.
Starting with non-production aggregates.)
6. If you can not generate or accept a default route that points
to NSFNET/ANSnet, can you suggest an alternate routing plan?
7. Do you expect NSFNET/ANSnet to do proxy aggregation for any explicit
routes that you announce?
8. Do you still expect to use EGP protocol to peer with NSFNET/ANSnet? (y/n)
More information about the NANOG