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?

Hans-Werner Braun hwb at
Wed Jan 3 23:21:50 UTC 1996

It even predates the T1/... NSFNET backbone. We already used something
like that for the 56kbps Fuzzball based NSFNET backbone. In a sense,
the RIPE db etc. are latecomers here. Susan is correct, the NSFNET
implemented and formalized the routing data base in evolutionary
stages. Often despite complaints from many sites that wanted free and
uncontrolled flow of routing information.

I am not arguing about whether the RIPE and the RA DB should or should
not be merged, just that there is a history to the steps taken, and
reconciling into a homogenious DB (format) would have to be a concious
effort by the parties seeing mutual benefit. Not that it should not
happen otherwise, it just won't, given project priorities.

>On Thursday 12/28 you enclosed with the text below:
>>May I ask: Is AS690 the Autonomus System number for ANS? I understand 
>>indeed that the PRDB was ANS specific but how exactly did that make the 
>>Ripe Database a better format? If it was a better format, it couldn't be 
>>used because the PRDB had components that were not transferrable to 
>>RIPE? Are you saying that to transfer the ANS database into RIPE format 
>>would have taken a very sizable number of person months?
>To help you understand the PRDB, I offer some historical
>information from an engineer's perspective: 
>  The concepts and the some of the code for the PRDB database system
>  predate even ANS's creation.  The PRDB concepts come from
>  the early days of the NSFNET and trying to run that specific network.
>  The multiple ISP/NSP world has come upon the Internet to replace
>  the NSFNET.  This change was requested by some people to provide
>  a fair marketplace in the Internet.
>  The routing registration shift from PRDB to RIPE/IRR
>  format reflects a shift in the Internet reality, not an
>  ANS database specific project.  The effort to keep the NSFNET
>  service current was an engineering effort over years.
>  We moved from 1/3 T1 to T1 to T3.  Our databases also migrated
>  implementations and service capabilities.  The PRDB was the
>  third in a series of the databases.  RIPE could be considered
>  the fourth.   
>I hope this has helped fill in some history around Curtis's comments.
>Sue Hares

More information about the NANOG mailing list