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?

Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at
Thu Jan 4 09:29:49 UTC 1996

  > hwb at (Hans-Werner Braun) writes:
  > 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. 

Indeed there is an evoloution of routing policy databases/registries. 

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
indepoendent ISPs.  We weren't more clever or had more foresight, we
simply had the need earlier. 

I think it has been a good decision by the RA team to use this
technology and to contribute to its development rather than inventing
something new right away.  Given the resources I would hope for more
output in the way of tools etc.  but I see it coming now. 

  > Often despite complaints from many sites that wanted free and
  > uncontrolled flow of routing information.

This is a great misconception about routing registries which comes from
the time of the single backbone model.  The routing registry and the
backbone were then operated by the same people and used to enforce The
Routing Policy.  The situation is different now.  Each ISP sets and
enforces their routing policy.  The routing registry only supports them
in this. 

Of course a good routing policy is to not propagate routes to address
space which is not assigned and to generally filter announcements from
customers.  But there is no way to use the routing registry to force
ISPs to do reasonable things. 

  > 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.

I am pessimistic at all.  All routing registies use the same schema or
very very similar ones.  They currently call come from the ripe-181
specifications which are based on input from the RA people.  The RADB,
RIPE RR, MCI RR and all the others really form a global Internet RR
which is quite useful already and can be made more useful. 

Two things are needed now:

1) Improve active maintenance by the registrars. This will by itself lead 
to better alignment between registries and remove duplicate registrations. 

2) Produce and *deploy* more useful tools.

If this is done well, ISPs will use those registries more and register in
them because it is useful and interest.


More information about the NANOG mailing list