Operational Issues with 184.108.40.206/8...
nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net
Wed Dec 4 12:01:07 UTC 2002
This topic came up on cisco-nsp, but was really more appropriate
here. Been meaning to post summaries when I got enough round tuits.
A suggestion was made there that the RIRs give a bgp feed of 'unused'
routes to interested parties such that they can be blackholed, etc.
Sounded like a lot of overhead and things which could go wrong to
me. Skipping over the arguments about who would/wouldn't modify
processes and would take such a feed, I wouldn't want to have to pay
for that infrastructure, its support and maintenance out of my
regsitry fees. I do think it makes LOADS of sense to have the
(un)allocations clearly visible in the IRR. Some of the RIRs do it
today for their 'greater aggregates' [eg, whois -h whois.ripe.net
Sure, you'd still have providers ignoring the IRR, but it gets a
lot harder for them to whine about the time it takes to update
filters or the lack of automation if the data is in a standard
format in globally distributed DBs for which there are umpty public
tools. There's always the gripe about authentication. Perhaps
the IANA should set up a routing registry which merely publishes in
RPSL format the allocated/unallocated list
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space) and the truly
paranoid can just consult *only* that registry for their
configuration magic? That would be a one-time hit for IANA [or
volunteers] to make the flat-file-to-RPSL code, and being a single-
source could be cyptographically signed/confirmed if needed.
crimson at sidehack.gweep.net * jprovo at gnu.ai.mit.edu * jzp at rsuc.gweep.net
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
More information about the NANOG