Summary of the RA situation was Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?

bmanning at ISI.EDU bmanning at ISI.EDU
Thu Dec 14 16:29:16 UTC 1995

> Now Bill Manning didn't NAME sprint yesterday in his complaint that I 
> have cited.  But no one has told me that anyone else besides sprint was 
> intended for the criticism.  Perhaps the question boils down to those 
> raised by Sean in the preceding paragraphs?  What does need do be done to 
> the RADB and RS to give them value?  There seems to be some strong 
> disagreement between the Routing Arbiter and Sprint.  Why?  What do they 
> see so differently?  And if MCI, PSI, UUNET and ANS don't agree with 
> sean's criticisms why don't they?
	Thank you for the clarification.  I was pointing out a
	process that would reduce the value of a routing registry.
	Extrapolations of that description to any specific provider
	would be presumptous without first hand knowledge.

	Now there is some truth in the statements wrt data accuracy
	in some sections of the IRR.  I understand that providers
	who run sections of the IRR and use that data for router
	configuration tend to keep the data very accurate.  In 
	other sections of the IRR, the data has some historical
	reference and may be out of date.  There is continued effort
	within the RA to identify the bogus data and find ways to
	remove it from the RAdb portion of the IRR.

	A process which would improve the accuracy of the data in
	the IRR is for providers run sections of the IRR on thier
	own, and use that data for their own router configurations.
	Now I understand that most large-scale providers do in fact,
	have databases for account managment. Some even use that data
	for router configuration. Now if they can export the formats
	that are specified in for IRR interoperability they are
	Km ahead in being able to participate in the IRR.. with
	vastly improved accuracy of data.


More information about the NANOG mailing list