PRDB retirement (and note about AS690 advisories)
barrett at daisy.ee.und.ac.za
Tue May 2 11:36:24 UTC 1995
I am not sure that nanog is the right place for this, since it affects
folk outside North America.
On Tue, 2 May 1995, Steve Heimlich wrote:
> New registered prefixes will assume the current majority policy toward
> the home AS in which they're registered.
What if the current majority policy for that AS is that most nets did not
have NSFNet routing, and are announced to ANS via the CIX? It might make
more sense to exclude non-NSFNet routes when determining the majority
Many folk have routes that did not have NSFNet routing and that were
announced to ANS via the CIX (with aslist 1:1957). What should be done
with those? Should we send in new NACRs to change the aslist?
Some non-NSFnet aggregates contain more-specific routes that do (or
rather, did) have NSFNet routing. How soon can we withdraw the
more-specifics? I fear that bad things will happen if we withdraw the
more-specifics without first changing the aslist on the aggregate.
How will ANS's new routing policy affect the peering between ANS and the
CIX? Is it still prohibited for ANS to hear the same route both through
the CIX and through a non-CIX connection? Should CIX members send in
new NACRs that include as1957 in aslists where it was not previously
included, or will ANS figure out something suitable without needing a
lot of new NACRs?
--apb (Alan Barrett)
More information about the NANOG