PRDB retirement (and note about AS690 advisories)

Steve Heimlich heimlich at
Tue May 2 16:48:33 UTC 1995


> I am not sure that nanog is the right place for this, since it affects
> folk outside North America.

True, but I couldn't think of a better list.  

> 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
> policy. 

This will take some time to clean up.  See below...

> 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? 

Well, the best thing I can think of is 1) we get rid of metric:as
lists and 2) we modify our aut-num object on a per-AS basis to
clean out exceptions like these routed only via the CIX, so that
we route to them via major interchange points (MAE-East, Sprint
NAP, MAE-West, Pac Bell NAP, ...).  We probably don't want to do
this until we axe the metric:as lists (so that we just do it once,
on an AS-basis).

> 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. 

In theory, immediately, though I agree that we should clean up/remove
the advisories first as the more conservative approach while getting
routing right for the aggregates.  I'd hate to change all of those
since I know they're going away Real Soon.

> 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?

We'll figure out something suitable and try to avoid metric:aslist
shifts -- not overnight, but as part of this whole process of
rationalizing policy.  As I mentioned above, the most conservative
approach will be to knock off ASes for which we have partial routing
through the CIX one at a time.


More information about the NANOG mailing list