Has PSI been assigned network 1?
John G. Scudder
jgs at aads.net
Wed Apr 19 18:58:48 UTC 1995
I assume one of the RA folks will respond to this if they see fit. However:
At 1:50 PM 4/19/95, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>Well, there is a big _if_: if things will work w/o RADB (and they
>will, for no sane provider will use RADB as the sole source of
>exterior information at peering points, not for at least before
>it became the proven and stable service) -- people will forget
>to update things, cut the corners, etc.
You appear to be conflating the RADB and the RSes. The two are separable.
You can use the RADB (or, more generally, the IRR) w/o having to trust the
I think this is a really important point, and one which a lot of people
seem to be confused about.
>NACRs were so big headache that our implementation people dance
>around when they hear that there won't be any NACRs.
>RADB got to be easy to use to become real. The e-mail interface
>of NACRs is close to uselessness, and too big headache to deal with.
>Waiting time on processing is simply ridiculous.
>There should be a host accepting telnet sessions for on-line
This has long existed for the NACR process.
>(which have to be installed *immediately*, so whoever
>added a network can test connectivity and go ahead).
>There should be well-defined and useful interface to service
>It should be secure.
Is PGP secure enough for you?
>RADB should be able to implement _existing_ routing policies,
>not the subset which can be defined in RIPE-81 (it currently
RIPE-181; it's different. Some people have complained that RIPE-181 is
also incapable of expressing their policies; perhaps someone from the RA
team can comment on how they intend to address that.
>can't, there are places which use a lot of _very_ hairy stuff).
>Without that i do not see RADB being successful or useful beyond the
>point of filtering updates from particularly obnoxious peers.
Which is already a big win, seeing as how there are a good number of
particularly obnoxious peers out there, some of them quite large.
I have to ask if you have actually looked at the RADB and surrounding
pieces at all. I think it addresses a number of the gripes you have
More information about the NANOG