Question on % of good routes and plea for an RA mail list was Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?
Steven J. Richardson
sjr at merit.edu
Thu Jan 4 21:28:36 UTC 1996
>From list-admin at merit.edu Thu Jan 4 05:03:27 1996
>Message-Id: <9601040929.AA14593 at ncc.ripe.net>
>To: hwb at upeksa.sdsc.edu (Hans-Werner Braun)
>Cc: nanog at merit.edu, RIPE Routing WG <routing-wg at ripe.net>
>Subject: Question on % of good routes and plea for an RA mail list was Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?
>In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 03 Jan 1996 15:21:50 PST.
> <199601032321.PAA24966 at upeksa.sdsc.edu>
>References: <199601032321.PAA24966 at upeksa.sdsc.edu>
>From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
>Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 10:29:49 +0100
>Sender: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
>The early NSFnet one was done to configure a single backbone. Remember
>that EGP was the state-of-the-art. NSFNet provided last resort routing
>and everyone was happy. More complex registries were not needed to keep
>track of this even when "back doors" appeared.
>In Europe the situation was not like that at all. Despite great efforts
>we were never blessed with a single pan-European backbone or even a
>last-resort routing service. This is why RIPE developed a routing
>registry that was capable of being useful in a general topology of
Lest anyone think that the PRDB was single-backbone-specific in
_design_ or capability (it pretty much was in terms of data), let
me note that, when Andy Adams and I rewrote the PRDB from a SPIRES
DB to a RDBMS (with help from Tom Libert and Sue Hares), we explicitly
designed in the ability to include data from other backbones.
This was initially done to support both the T1 and T3 backbones, but
it could easily have supported other backbones as well.
More information about the NANOG